Phil 110: Social Contract Theory

May 26: Social Contract Theory

 Last Day

 Today
  1. J.S. Mill; laissez-faire; Adam Smith
  2. Problems for utilitarianism; kinds of pleasure; rationality's role in economic decisions; government and private citizens; liberalism
  3. Marx; structure of society; historic analysis
  4. Socialist critique of capitalism; current affairs

1) Read 156-199; 2) Should there ever be affirmative action? When? Why? Why not?; 3) Answer question 3. on p. 198.

  1. Political philosophy; concept of the state; anarchists
  2. Jean-Jacques Rousseau; social contract theory
  3. Pluralist theory of state
  4. Racial critique of social contract; the racial contract
  5. Affirmative action

To do for next class - 1) Read pp. 200-253. 2) Prepare for the mid-term exam. 3) Decide on a topic for your final essay.


Introduction

Political philosophy differs slightly from social philosophy although they share some important characteristics. In fact, political philosophy is most often considered a sub-part of social philosophy which introduces some new concepts: that of the state, ruling rights, institutions, and social contracts to name a few. In general it is the consideration of whether or not and why a state has the right to rule. What constitutes a state and the relationship between the state, other institutions in the state, and it's members. One of the more often discussed relationships is that of the social contract.

The state

What is a state? What are its identifying characteristics? It is not a geographical division, it is a social one. It is the sub-group of people in charge of creating and enforcing the laws to which a group of people are subject. That sub-group may be one person, as in the case of a monarchy or dictatorship or it may be a lot of people as in the case of a liberal democracy. The reasons for those people being power are varied. Can you think of examples? (hereditary rights, overthrown previous rulers, strongest member, elected) But the nature of the power is always quite similar. The have the power to force others, either physically or by threat of physical force, to abide by the laws which they uphold.

The reasons for the existence of a state (i.e. why they uphold those laws) can be varied; religious, safety, justice, promote a certain class, make money for itself. In this sense it is hard to define states in terms of a function they perform for those they rule. We cannot explain states in terms of their teleology (e.g. function of a heart is to pump blood). The easiest way to get a handle on what states are is to consider their two common characteristics. What are they? (use force to obtain obedience; are considered to have a right to rule).

Threat of force includes threat of economic sanction, as well as the threat of military or police action. Is it necessary for force to be a part of statehood, or is it a contingent fact? This may depend on what we think of human nature.

Of course, anyone who can employ force successfully is not considered a state. Rather, a state also lays claim to the right to issue laws, and make decisions for the group that is ruled. This, it seems, is not even conceivably a contingent fact. No matter who is in charge, if challenged with "Why do you get to make the decisions?" they will offer a response: "Because you told me to"; "Because I'm the strongest."; "Because it's my God given right".

In sum, a state is: "a group of people who claim the right to enforce obedience to their commands within a territory and succeed in getting most of the people in the territory to accept that claim."

Anarchism

However, there are a group of philosophers who deny this right (there is always a group of philosophers around to deny something) - the are called anarchists. Despite the connections many of us have between anarchism and the punk movement, it is a serious political philosophy which the author of our text has written well known books on. Anarchists believe that no state has a right to rule. Wolff is surprised by the fact that most people accept this right. People tend to obey the law more that is warranted simply by threat of punishment. How, he asks, could the IRS collect all that tax money if everyone didn't believe they had right to collect it? Wolff puts the question of a state as: Does any group of persons ever have the right to command? Most would ask: When and why does a group have a right to govern? As an individual, Wolff can asks: Do I ever have an obligation to obey the commands issued by some group calling itself the state? Perhaps we can ask: Do I ever have an obligation to follow the laws created by those who govern me?


Jean-Jacques Rousseau

For a long time, the obligation to follow commands was thought to be conditional on a ruler performing the duty of ruling well. However, in the 16th and 17th centuries, monarchs began to claim absolute (divine, often) power over his/her subjects. However, philosophers during the 'Enlightenment' (after the renaissance) thought that this was merely a form of slavery, a denial of human autonomy. However, many of these philosophers, like Jean-Jacques Rousseau felt that government was still necessary. Thus for him the question became: Is there a way in which I can be commanded by a state without giving up my autonomy and freedom? This was Rousseau's most important achievement, one that has lead many to claim (like Wolff) that he was the greatest political philosopher ever. Formulating a novel question which has lead to so much discussion is by no means an easy task, this was Rousseau's:

Where shall we find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and the property of each associate, and by which every person, while uniting himself with all, shall obey only himself and remain as free as before?


The social contract

For many, including Rousseau, the answer to this question lies in the conception of a social contract. Like any contract, this is an agreement by members of society to act for their mutual benefit. The idea is legal one, but it has great significance when applied to society as a whole. Each member of society, is thought (in some manner) to have 'signed' this contract and continues to endorse it by remaining a member of the society for which the contract was drawn up. This is a compelling solution to the problem of legitimate authority. Why? It also provides a solution to Rousseau's problem. How? (The law-makers and the law-obeyers are the same set of people, thus we are, strictly speaking autonomous (self-governed)).

One problem which arises with the social contract, is getting the co-operation of so many when it comes time to make laws. This, of course, is why we have elected representatives. However, Rousseau would accuse us of being so apathetic as to have given up our most basic freedom: that of self government. He would predict the downfall of the state of the United States of America if he were here today. Rousseau believes that the essence of sovereignty is the general will and that, by definition, if that will is not self-represented (i.e. by everyone) then it does not truly exist. What do you think? Can practical considerations convincingly override Rousseau's point? Is this another tension between theory and practice, like in the ethics sections?

A second important problem is that of disagreement. Say we manage to convince everyone to show up on voting day, what if people disagree? How can we remain free if we subject ourselves to the will of others (even if there are more of them) with whom we disagree? Say that it is part of the social contract that we must obey the majority vote. In what sense can we still solve the second puzzle (that of remaining free)? Rousseau's answer to the problem sounds puzzling (p. 168 bottom). In effect he says that if we are on the losing side of a vote, we were mistaken and if for some other reason, our side had won, we would have done what we were not 'willing' to do and would thus not be in a state of freedom. In fact, Rousseau says that a citizen must be forced to be free if they are not obeying the general will. What did Rousseau mean? (He meant that what I really want, by entering the contract, is the general good. If I vote against the majority, then I was simply mistaken about what the general will was. But I want the general good, as determined by the general will so in fact, I was simply wrong in my vote. If freedom is getting what you really want then you must be forced to be free by being forced to abide by the general will.) What is wrong with this argument? (This is: But is the general good really determined by the general will?)


Critique of social contract theory

Americans should find most of this discussion familiar. For, in fact, the USA is the only country ever to be created with an explicit social contract, the Constitution. So perhaps here, more than anywhere else, it can be argued that the citizens really did willingly enter into a contract to obey the state. However, this is not true of any other country. How could social contract theory still be said to apply to them? Is the contract implicit? How could we tell? Can/should those countries draw up social contracts now? What if someone doesn't want to enter the new contract?

This brings to light, the an important criticism of the contract: In what sense have I (as a later generation citizen) signed the contract of my forbearers? In other words, why should I abide by a contract which I, in effect, had nothing to do with? Those, like Locke, note that we can conceive of children as signing the contract when they become the age of legal adulthood. By staying in the country past this age, we can consider these new citizens to agree to the terms of the contract. This argument makes sense if there are other options for those who implicitly (or tacitly) sign the contract. If I am free to leave the USA and go somewhere with no such contract, or establish my own it seems like staying is a real choice. And, in fact, it was a choice in Locke's day. However, nowadays, it is not clear that new (hereditary) citizens really have that choice to make. There is no where they can go to avoid a social contract all together and/or start their own. Is there?


The pluralist theory of state

In some sense, the pluralist theory of state seems to be a rebellion against the highly theoretical nature of social contract discussions. Pluralists are somewhat pragmatic in their discussions. They tell us to look at how politics is actually done. There we see not a relation between the individual citizen and the state, but a relation between groups. All of us are members of many groups -- a church, a university, a baseball team, a fraternity, an ethnic group or a family -- all of these groups have interests (sometimes conflicting) in political decisions made by the state. Furthermore, it is these groups, according to pluralists that hold the true allegiance of their members, states come only second (or third, fourth or fifth). Thus the decisions made are ones which represent the success of group struggles, not of struggles of individuals. Wolff suggests that the pluralists have an implicit problem with the ought/is distinction we encountered earlier. He notes that the pluralist description of government seems to be a lot the way government is, but asks if that is how it should be. The Founding Fathers seemed to think not. James Madison thought the Constitution would, in fact, undermine the effects of 'factions'.

Interestingly, Wolff presents two points against social contract theory and for the pluralist ideas. However, Wolff doesn't seem to realize that (his previous hero) Rousseau's version of the social contract would side step each of the criticisms. What are those criticisms? They are:

  1. Interest groups allow a voter voice to be heard between election years.
  2. Interest groups allow voters to express the complexity, specificity and intensity of their interests, unlike the 'yes/no' vote does.

How would Rousseau avoid the criticisms? It seems that Wolff has let the pragmatic considerations outweigh the theoretic ones, without letting us know that. Interestingly, the applied results have informed the meta results, just as in ethics.

What is the problem with factions for Wolff? (Uneven distribution of resources needed to make factions successful, thus each person does not have an equal say). Examples: NRA, Greenpeace, trade unions, KKK, farmers, NOW (national organization for women).


The Racial Contract

Nina? What is the purpose of the social contract? (It is to provide a means for a large group to govern itself in a justified manner. It allows the group to accomplish things individuals couldn't). What is the justification of the social contract? (Agreement, explicit or implicit of the participants). What, according to Mills is the purpose of the social contract? (Camouflage for what is really going on. Notably, it was 'designed to conceal' the truth). What does he mean by racial contract? (An agreement by whites over nonwhites about how they will treat each other (but not nonwhites). Nonwhites are the objects, not subjects of this agreement. Clearly they can not participate in the contract.)

What arguments are there for Mills' position? 1) It's explicit in the Constitution, a slave is 3/5 of a free person. 2) It can be invisible. Segregation is an obvious part of American culture. Thus (?) racism is not anomalous, it is the norm. Mills claims that we should realize that humanism means only European and Americans are human. Is he suggesting that if everyone came over to make a contract equally, there would be no segregation? (This isn't the case in Canada).

What do you think of the movie example Wolff uses? Are whites generally blind to racism? Were you 'shocked' by what Wolff had to say? Should such movies be banned? Are there movies that are the other way around (i.e. make London look foreign etc)?

Can you see anything wrong with the racial contract critique? Is this critique a critique of the theory of the social contract? Is it a critique of theory or practice? Does this mean the social contract is bad philosophy? Can the philosophy be separated from the implementation?

Do you notice anything familiar about Mills' critique? Is it Marxian? Or like the utilitarian critique which gave rise to the social contract?


Affirmative action

What is affirmative action as regards colleges? It is providing of incentive (as opposed to a simple removal of barriers) by means of setting a set of criteria that favors one group over another. It is supposed to rectify racial imbalances.

Is AA reverse racism? Is it as morally wrong as whites claiming privileges? What about historical differences? Can we make a distinction between the problem and the solution? How? Is it undemocratic to 'un-level' the playing field? If so, does that matter? Do SAT scores fairly measure merit, objectively? What about shifting the policy to economically disadvantage people? Are you surprised by the example of the two young men in St. Louis? What do you think of the 'why me' objection? What do you think of Fish's claim that fairness must be judged historically?

What do you think of Wilson's good/bad AA distinction? Given Fish's warnings, how should we read Wilson's claims about the admission policies of undergraduate universities? What are the costs to society of admitting AA groups to professional schools? Are there benefits to outweigh these costs?

Do group quotas stigmatize legitimate achievements by members of AA groups as Sowell claims? Does this do more harm than good? How about the fact that white males can use AA as an excuse? Two wrongs don't make a right? What about the fact that 3/4 of AA students don't graduate - perhaps because they are in the 'wrong' schools? Is AA doing more harm than good?

What about the complaints of Chavez (a middle class Latin American)? Her son was given offers only because of race, is that bad? Is there really no other option? (leveling the field earlier).


To do for next class

1) Read pp. 200-253. 2) Prepare for the mid-term exam. 3) Decide on a topic for your final essay.


If you have any questions, feel free to email me at chris@twinearth.wustl.edu.

Last updated May 98