30 Mark Question
OK, this is the biggy, getting the 15 mark question up to a high standard as well as the 30 mark ones. Still within ethics and following from the, now understood, exercise highlighted in values.
Starting with a title or question:
Assess the social contract theory of morality.
Morality consists of a social contract. Discuss.
To what extent does morality consist of a social contract?
For a 30 mark question write this answer structured in four paragraphs.
- Introductory paragraph. Explain what the social contract is. This paragraph can be similar to a the introduction in the 15 mark question. I managed to get something down in class for this paragraph so here is what I wrote.
Hobbes suggests that we need a social contract as a way out of the ’state of nature.’ The state of complete self-interest and egotism. In his book Leviathan, Hobbes argues that this state of nature is bad for everyone because everyone would be living in constant danger of being robbed and killed, it is only rational to want to escape it. The way to advance from this state is via a social contract where people agree on certain standards or judgments about morality. These standards are still within our self-interest but it is agreed the one person will not steal from another on the understanding that others reciprocate, he calls this a enlightened egoism. Without this sort of proscription, Hobbes suggests that the life of man would be ’solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.’ Plato previously considered this with the ‘Ring of Gyges,’ where Gyges had a ring of invisibility and used it to seduce a queen. Plato considers no man would keep his hands off what was not his own in such a position where he would not encounter any punishment for breaking the rules. - Give a criticism of the social contract. It was suggested we use the fairness criticism here since that has been where most of our concentration has been going. Include in this paragraph a mention of Crispin Sartwell, Marx and I’ve added Plato again.
- Rawls modification of the social contract. Explain how Rawls meets the criticism by introducing the veil of ignorance and his principles of impartiality. Society now is different (Rawls wrote in 1971). Think about the card game and his three principles.
- Singers criticisms of Rawls. Explain how singer thins the social contract is still unfair and suggest that other moral systems such as utilitarianism might be better. Briefly say what utilitarianism is and how the social contract is still unfair in relation to severely disabled, those whose consent cannot be given and also include animals in this. Talk about Speciesism and suggest a duty of care towards animals.
There are the four paragraphs for a 30 mark question. We did also listen to an audio file of Peter singer that I did find interesting in many ways some of which I’m still thinking about. Listen to it here and address these questions.
- What kind of non-human animal might be a person?
- Are all humans persons?
- What is speciesism?
- What is utilitarianism?
See Also
|
|
|
|
|
- » Callicles
» Criticism of Hobbes Social Contract
» Aristotle 384 - 322 BCE
» Is Morality Just Social Convention?
» Morality As Constitutive Of Self Interest The Greeks
Paragraph 2
We can also find the figure of Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic who argues that morality is a matter of social convention of which we would not willingly make. Morality, he continues, is a form of social control not serving society as a whole but the interests of a minority who started from a strong position in the state of nature. Similarly, Karl Marx suggests that this morality is the ideology of the the ‘ruling class.’ It serves the minority class interests over the general population. Particularly in respect of private property, of which this class is in chief possession. Marx suggests that theft is considered a great evil by this class precisely because it serves their particular interests.
Paragraph 3
Modification of the social contract is expressed by John Rawls through the ‘veil of ignorance.’ Writing at a relatively similar time as Sartwell, Rawls tries to address some of the unfairness and criticism surrounding the social contract. He illustrates that modifications can be achieved when starting from the veil of ignorance with the making up of rules in a games of cards. From a starting point of not knowing where the players will end up in the game ensures everyone will make rules more impartial and therefore more universal, incorporating a sense of ‘fair play’. To this end Rawls formulates three principles. ‘First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others.’ This statement from his book, ‘A Theory of Justice’ (1971) which examines liberty is designed to ensure people have political liberty and freedom of speech. Liberty of conscience and freedom of thought are also liberties that Rawls persuasively argues people must not go without. He goes on to equal opportunities to say that ‘offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity’ and concludes with ’social and economic inequalities are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society,’ regarding his third principle, difference. Rawls also suggests there may be a number of ‘free riders’ in society. Similar to ‘cheats’ in Richard Dawkins work John Rawls relates the term free riders to those in society who take benefits and give nothing in return so then suggests that if the benefits and advantaged are accepted people must also share in the burdens and meet obligation.
Paragraph 4
The social contract is by no means the only morality system on offer and can still be improved upon. Cripin Sartwell’s claims of the social contract being ‘taken by force’ can be somewhat avoided whilst considering the position of a utilitarian. Understanding that ‘the greatest happiness for the larger number’ may lead to a similar position as Rawls outlines. In accepting burdens and meeting obligations, Peter Singer, an Australian born philosopher, goes further. From his viewpoint that the moral worth of an action is determined by its contribution overall, he presents, as a utilitarian, that the justification for the social contract being moral comes from the acceptance of its principle and not necessarily moral in itself. It also excludes animals who are not capable of participating and extends to include those in a permanent vegetative state. Bringing into focus that the social contract is a completely human device that animals cannot reciprocate and explicitly or implicitly participate Singer shows humans as being ’speciesist.’ In the opening chapter of ‘Animal Liberation’ he asserts that humans and animals are equal and not treating them likewise should be on the same par as racism and sexism. Pain for a human is as bad as pain for a mouse, why should we discriminate?