paper
liuchang
EthicsWeek3-SocialContractTheoryandEthicalEgoism.pptxEthics in computer games and cinema: Week three
Social Contract Theory
And Ethical egoism
1
Learning objectives
Understand the meaning behind the state of nature.
Understand the meaning behind the social contract theory.
Understand Psychological Egoism.
Understand Ethical Egoism.
What is the state of nature?
According to Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the state of nature is the natural human condition, separated from societal rules. Therefore, according to Hobbes, human beings would theoretically be living in the state of nature if there were no such thing as a rational society. Currently, as we live in a healthy society, we find ourselves NOT living in the state of nature.
To put it another way, as human beings, we act a certain way. However, part of the reason why is because of society. If we were to then take away the laws and order of society, we would find ourselves in our NATURAL human state (in other words, the state of nature).
Therefore, our knowledge of the state of nature can allow us to see the power society has on each of us, as well as how it changes us from who we naturally are to who we must become in order to survive and work with others.
In short, when living in the state of nature, we live without a society…
No Laws
No Government
No Police
3
Living in the state of nature
Hobbes believes living in the state of nature would be absolutely miserable.
In a world in which there is no society, human beings will be forced to compete with each other to survive. Our natural selfishness would reveal itself and we would not be quite as nice as we are now.
To put it another way, while in the state of nature, we would have a lot of freedom, but at the same time, we would also have no security and so anyone could get away with anything they wanted at all times, making life extremely horrifying.
Within the state of nature, we would find ourselves stealing anything we need to survive and we would even attack others to get what we need. This is what each of us would want to do to survive and we know it’s what others would be doing as well.
4
Living in the state of nature (cont.)
Within the state of nature, we might also imagine someone really strong who can therefore take advantage of others (and within the state of nature, they would have the freedom to pursue this).
Even for this strong person, he/she could also easily be defeated by a bunch of weaker people, who could come together to bring them down.
Therefore within the state of nature, no one is safe, everyone is vulnerable, and as Hobbes says, life would be “nasty, brutish, and short” (Rachels 85).
5
Escaping the state of nature
In order to escape the state of nature, we must establish a social contract theory (which we can view as a normative school of thought).
The goal we will need to have if we want to free ourselves from the state of nature, is to work together with other people, rather than isolating ourselves from others. If successful, this would allow us to form a rational society.
In order to achieve this, we will first have to establish a set of rules that we can all agree with (laws). We will then work towards making sure these laws are enforced (police).
For example, we can make it a rule that it is not okay to steal something that isn’t yours. If people in the state of nature form a group that acknowledges this rule and works towards enforcing it, then within this group, we won’t have to worry about others stealing from us, something that would be a big deal in the state of nature.
6
Additional notes on the state of nature and s.c.t.
The state of nature forces isolation and lack of trust. However, a rational society encourages group participation and agreements on following rules. Clearly, it seems that this is the much better way to live.
Within a rational society, rather than selfishly focusing on myself and no one else, I instead agree on following rules that benefit everyone.
For example, I don’t want to die, so I will surely agree to a rule that says it’s wrong to kill someone. Now I know I’m protected by the law. I won’t kill anyone because I know that’s against the law and I won’t have to worry about someone else killing me.
I agree to do this because others have agreed to do the same. This is the essence of the social contract.
7
Additional notes on the state of nature and s.c.t. (Cont.)
We might also view the Social Contract Theory as a trade.
If we imagine ourselves living in the state of nature, then we have a great deal of freedom.
Therefore, if we don’t like life in the state of nature, then we must sacrifice some of our freedom in exchange for life in a healthy, rational society.
With that said, there will be certain occurrences in a healthy society that some might find to be a little annoying.
For example, while living in a rational society, we do have to pay taxes, and from time to time we might get a speeding ticket or something along those lines.
However, as annoying as some of these things might be, it still definitely seems worth it to be living in a rational society as opposed to the horrifying alternative (state of nature).
8
Disadvantages to the social contract theory
The disadvantages are as follows…
S.C.T. is based on fiction
Hobbes is simply theorizing about how he thinks humans naturally would be if there were no society, but since this is based in fiction, it diminishes the social contract theory.
(2) S.C.T. doesn’t say anything about those who cannot benefit us.
According to S.C.T., we only agree to rules that will benefit us in some way (I don’t want to die, so I’ll agree to a societal law that condemns acts of murder). Therefore, if there were someone who couldn’t benefit us, then we have no moral obligation to care for them according to S.C.T.
This can apply to…
---Future Generations
---Oppressed Populations
In other words, “The Social Contract Theory is grounded in self-interest and reciprocity; thus it seems unable to adequately recognize the moral duties we have to individuals who cannot benefit us” (99).
9
Additional Criticism against S.c.T.
Another noteworthy criticism against Hobbes’ view of the state of nature comes from the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778).
Contrary to Hobbes who believed that human beings are naturally self-interested, thus allowing the state of nature to be unbearable, Rousseau believed that another important natural trait in human nature is the virtue of compassion.
Therefore, while Hobbes is saying the state of nature must be avoided and that the social contract theory is the only way to free us from the state of nature, then perhaps Rousseau’s more optimistic view means we don’t need the society guaranteed by the social contract theory. Perhaps the state of nature isn’t all that bad after all.
10
Social Contract Theory Discussion Question
Discussion Question: Consider video games where you get to work as a team with other gamers (kind of like society: working together to achieve something) versus games where you just play on your own without any help from anyone. Is there a benefit to making more games that encourage teamwork amongst multiple gamers? It seems this could encourage young, impressionable gamers to realize the importance of societies working together to solve problems, rather than acting alone.
11
End of First Half
12
Psychological Egoism
Psychological Egoism says that human beings are inherently selfish.
In other words, for psychological egoists, we constantly pursue our own self interests. This is not to say that we ought to pursue our own self interests or that doing so is morally permissible. Whether we want to say it is or it isn’t morally permissible, according to psychological egoism, this is just the way we are.
However, there clearly are acts of altruism (sacrificing our happiness for the happiness of others). Psychological Egoists acknowledge this and still believe human beings are naturally selfish. From their perspective, even our altruistic acts can be viewed as selfish.
13
Psychological Egoism First argument
We always do what we want to do.
14
The problem with the first argument
The problem with this argument is that we can say that altruism is the exact opposite of the selfishness psychological egoists claim we all have.
If we’re altruistic, then we’re not looking out for ourselves at all. Even if I’m doing what I want to do, I’m still sacrificing my own happiness to help other people.
What matters is what you desire. If you desire to look out for yourself, then of course you’re being selfish. However, if you desire to help others instead, then you are being altruistic.
We can therefore argue that contrary to psychological egoism, there is a big difference between selfishness and altruism.
15
Psychological Egoists: Selfishness is based on desire. I do what I want to do and so technically that makes everything I do an act of selfishness
Rachels: It’s not just about desire. It’s about what kind of desire an action is based on. Just because we do what we want doesn’t make us selfish.
16
Psychological Egoism Second argument
We always do what makes us feel good.
17
The problem with the second argument
The problem with the second argument is that we don’t really do things just to achieve satisfaction. Maybe sometimes that will be the case, but there are also instances when we want to help someone, simply because it’s the right thing to do.
18
Psychological Egoists: The reason why we do anything is because we want to feel good. Even altruistic acts are therefore things I do for my own happiness/satisfaction.
Rachels: It is our desire to help others that comes first. This is why people are altruistic. Afterwards, we feel good, but that’s not why we do what we do.
19
Discussion Question
Discussion Question Do you believe that as human beings, everything we do is selfish? In other words, do you agree with psychological egoism?
20
What is ethical egoism?
Ethical Egoism is a normative school of thought that says we ought to pursue our own interests exclusively.
Therefore, according to Ethical Egoism, all of one’s moral obligations must be about looking out for him or herself.
At the same time, we can, as ethical egoists, look out for others, but only if doing so will also help us in some way.
For example, if you help a homeless person by giving him spare change, and doing so is something you’re passionate about, then while it helps someone else, it can still be considered an act of selfishness and therefore something ethical egoists will be in favor of.
In the following slides, we will take a look at some of the main arguments made by ethical egoists.
21
Ethical egoism first argument
The first argument says selfishness is not only good for me, but also good for others.
- We ought to do whatever will best promote everyone’s interests.
- The best way to promote everyone’s interests is for each of us to pursue our own interests exclusively.
Therefore, each of us should pursue our own interests exclusively.
Ethical egoists will justify this argument by saying that if we look out for others, we are being intrusive, or that if we decide to help others then they will become dependent and that it’s better for all of us to be as independent as possible.
22
Rachels’ objection
Rachels’ objection to the first argument is that it seems to defeat the purpose of what ethical egoism is all about.
If the argument says we’re supposed to care for others, then even if they want us to look out for ourselves exclusively in order to help others, it is still about helping others and not about selfishness.
Therefore, while it might make a good general moral argument, it doesn’t work as an argument in defense of ethical egoism.
23
Ethical egoism Second argument
A moral philosopher named Ayn Rand (1905-1982) provides the second main argument for ethical egoism.
For Ayn Rand, selfishness is a virtue and altruism is bad.
Given that this life is the only life you’ll ever have, it’s important that you take it seriously and look out for yourself.
Meanwhile, for Rand, altruism is considered evil, as it is all about sacrificing your own happiness entirely for the happiness of someone else.
For example, let’s say you have five dollars in your pocket and you’re walking around in Chicago. You could spend that money on a hot dog or you could help a homeless person with it. Now let’s say that while you like hot dogs, you also like helping homeless people. Therefore, no matter which of these decisions you want to make, you will be happy either way and so for Ayn Rand, both of these decisions are selfish ones. If however you were forced by someone else to help the homeless person, but you also don’t want to help him, then helping him is not selfish, but rather altruistic, and therefore morally wrong.
Image of
Ayn Rand
24
Rachels’ objection
Ayn Rand is saying that there are two ways to live our lives: The selfish way (morally right) and the altruistic way (morally wrong). However, both of these lifestyles are radical, and so according to Rachels, the right way to live might be to find a middle ground between living only for your happiness and no one else’s (selfish) and living only for the happiness of others (altruistic).
In other words, we can say that “one’s own interests and the interests of others are important, and so we must strike a balance between them” (77).
So while we can certainly view altruism as extreme, we should also view the ethics of selfishness as extreme, and therefore seek out a middle ground.
25
Ethical egoism Third argument
The third and final argument for Ethical Egoism says that we should exercise self-interest because doing so will lead us to following basic moral rules, such as not harming others or not lying to others.
We can look at three examples of this…
If we harm others, then they will want to harm us. We therefore shouldn’t harm people, if we want to be good to ourselves.
If we lie to people, we will develop a bad reputation, and so if we want to be good to ourselves, we shouldn’t lie.
If we don’t keep our promises, then others won’t like us, and so if we want people to admire us, we must keep our promises.
26
Rachels’ objection
Rachels’ objection to the third argument is that while the argument might be the most reasonable one made by ethical egoists so far, it could also be used to defend bad behavior.
For instance, if someone wanted to kill someone else because they felt doing so was to their advantage, then according to this argument, such an act would still be morally permissible. As long as you can be benefited by what you’re doing, then you should do it.
So while this argument can justify following good moral rules, it could also justify following bad ones as well.
27
discussion question
Overall, do you agree or disagree with E.E.?
Why or why not?
28
Next Time: Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics
Reading assignment:
Rachels: chapters 7,8, 9, and 10
Mill: Utilitarianism chapter 1 (PDF)
Kant: Groundwork Section 2 (PDF)
29
