Social Contract Theory
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls’ Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others. More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons. Table of Contents
1. Socrates’ Argument
2. Modern Social Contract Theory
1. Thomas Hobbes
2. John Locke
3. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
3. More Recent Social Contract Theories
1. John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice
2. David Gauthier
4. Contemporary Critiques of Social Contract Theory
1. Feminist Arguments
1. The Sexual Contract
2. The Nature of the Liberal Individual
3. Arguing from Care
2. Race-Conscious Argument
6. References and Further Reading
1. Socrates’ Argument
In the early Platonic dialogue, Crito, Socrates makes a compelling argument as to why he must stay in prison and accept the death penalty, rather than escape and go into exile in another Greek city. He personifies the Laws of Athens, and, speaking in their voice, explains that he has acquired an overwhelming obligation to obey the Laws because they have made his entire way of life, and even the fact of his very existence, possible. They made it possible for his mother and father to marry, and therefore to have legitimate children, including himself. Having been born, the city of Athens, through its laws, then required that his father care for and educate him. Socrates’ life and the way in which that life has flourished in Athens are each dependent upon the Laws. Importantly, however, this relationship between citizens and the Laws of the city are not coerced. Citizens, once they have grown up, and have seen how the city conducts itself, can choose whether to leave, taking their property with them, or stay. Staying implies an agreement to abide by the Laws and accept the punishments that they mete out. And, having made an agreement that is itself just, Socrates asserts that he must keep to this agreement that he has made and obey the Laws, in this case, by staying and accepting the death penalty. Importantly, the contract described by Socrates is an implicit one: it is implied by his choice to stay in Athens, even though he is free to leave.
In Plato’s most well-known dialogue, Republic, social contract theory is represented again, although this time less favorably. In Book II, Glaucon offers a candidate for an answer to the question “what is justice?” by representing a social contract explanation for the nature of justice. What men would most want is to be able to commit injustices against others without the fear of reprisal, and what they most want to avoid is being treated unjustly by others without...
References: * Baier, Annette. 1994. Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
* Braybrooke, David. 1976. “The Insoluble Problem of the Social Contract.” Dialogue Vol. XV, No. 1: 3-37.
* DiStefano, Christine. 1991. Configurations of Masculinity: A Feminist Perspective on Modern Political Theory. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
* Filmer, Robert. ‘Patriarcha’ and Other Writings. Cambridge University Press (1991).
* Gauthier, David. 1986. Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* Gauthier, David. 1988. “Hobbes’s Social Contract.” Noûs 22: 71-82.
* Gauthier, David. 1990. Moral Dealing: Contract, Ethics, and Reason. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
* Gauthier, David. 1991. “Why Contractarianism?” in Vallentyne 1991: 13-30.
* Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
* Hampton, Jean. 1986. Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Hampton, Jean. 1993. “Feminist Contractarianism.” In Antony, Louise M. and Witt, Charlotte (Editors). 1993. A Mind of One’s Own: Essays on Reason and Objectivity. Boulder CO: Westview Press, Inc.: 1993: 227-255.
* Held, Virginia. 1977. “Rationality and Reasonable Cooperation.” Social Research (Winter 1977): 708-744.
* Held, Virginia. 1993. Feminist Morality: Transforming Culture, Society, and Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
* Hobbes, Thomas. 1651a. Leviathan. C.B Macpherson (Editor). London: Penguin Books (1985)
* Kavka, Gregory S
* Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. Yale University Press (2003).
* Macpherson, C.B. 1973. Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
* Mills, Charles. 1997. The Racial Contract. Cornell University Press.
* Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
* Okin, Susan Moller. 1989. Justice, Gender, and the Family. New York: Basic Books.
* Pateman, Carole. 1988. The Sexual Contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
* Plato. Five Dialogues. (Trans. G.M.A. Grube) Hackett Publishing Company (1981).
* Plato. Republic. (Trans. G.M.A. Grube, Revised by C.D.C. Reeve) Hackett Publishing Company (1992)
* Poundstone, William
* Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
* Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press.
* Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Basic Political Writings. (Trans. Donald A. Cress) Hackett Publishing Company (1987).
* Sandel, Michael. 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Vallentyne, Peter. (Editor). 1991. Contractarianism and Rational Choice: Essays on David Gauthier’s Morals by Agreement. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document