John Locke’s Social Contract: An Essay in Favor of the Theory

If I had to choose a single ethical theory to base all of my ethical decision-making on, I would probably choose Social Contract Theory. Both Utilitarianism and Social Contract Theory most closely resemble the way I personally see the world, but I believe the former is better suited to disconnected, theoretical ethical debates than real-world problems. On the contrary, Social Contract Theory has some contradictions that come up in hypothetical ethical dilemmas, but are not so big of an issue in the real-world ethical logic of daily life.

Social Contract Theory states that, "Morality consists in the set of rules, governing how people are to treat one another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others follow those rules as well." (James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy). What this means is, a moral rule is just if most or all rational, reasonable people would collectively decide to accept that rule because of its benefit to everyone in a society. This belief system was first theorized by people like Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

My top reason for choosing this theory to live by is that I find it most applicable to realistic, daily life, where things are not always "good" or "bad". Other rule-based ethical theories don't allow for exceptions to these rules, even when breaking a rule is clearly advantageous. The idea of the theory is that everyone receives certain benefits in return for bearing certain burdens (Quinn, 89). Thus, if a rule or law bring undue burden on an individual or group, breaking that law is then justified under the social contract theory, even when the same action would be viewed as unjust under Kantianism or Rule Utilitarianism.

Order custom essay John Locke’s Social Contract: An Essay in Favor of the Theory with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

For example, civil disobedience is hard to justify under the other rule-based ethical theories. (Quinn, 89) If I were to break a law that I felt is unjust, it would be immoral under Kantianism because the rule, "It is okay to violate laws that you feel are unjust," cannot be universalized. Under rule utilitarianism, that same rule also cannot apply because if it were universalized, the resultant chaos would have a negative impact on total happiness of society. However, social contract theory allows this, because if a rule or law places unfair burden on any particular group, it is unjust and thus breakable from an ethical standpoint.

Some criticisms against social contract theory center on the existence of a "contract" itself. Critics argue that there is no enumerated, defined contract and the conditions of this contract are not recorded anywhere, so it is impossible to give consent to. Others claim that since the members of society haven't explicitly agreed to the obligations and conditions of the contract, they cannot be held accountable to them. However, as philosopher John Rawls described it, the social contract is hypothetical-it is what rational people "could, or would, agree to, not what they have agreed to" — and non-historical - because they "do not suppose the agreement has ever, or indeed ever could actually be entered into." (John Rawls, Justice As Faimess: A Restatement.) What this means is, it's incorrect to argue against a notional contract on factual ground. Since the "contract" is an idea rather than an actual contract, it should not be argued against as a real contract would be argued against.

Another criticism leveled against social contract theory is that it doesn't have any realistic way to respond to a problem involving conflicting rights. However, I believe most cases involving conflicting rights have unique, third-option ways of viewing the problem, and thus this criticism can't be argued on theoretical ground alone. It can be argued either way on a case-by-case basis, but doing so for every theoretical case is impossible.

For example, a third way of looking at a problem that seems to violate this is when the right to free speech is pitted against the right to avoid objectionable content. This dilemma can be explained in a way that does not violate on principal either side's agreed-upon rights. If a group has a right to free speech, a person can choose to exercise their right not to listen to it by avoiding that content altogether (by avoiding public rallies or speeches, avoiding content on TV, radio, or the Internet, etc.) Unless one party or the other goes out of their way to exercise their right in an interfering way (which would be intentionally violating the other party's right and thus morally unjust), both parties may exercise their right even though their rights conflict.

The point being, these example cases can be solved neatly by looking at the specifics of the case as opposed to the idea of the theory itself), and looking for alternatives that do not violate any right. If, to argue this point, a hypothetical argument is required instead of a realistic, practical dilemma, then I don't feel it should be considered in whether or not I use this ethical theory for daily life.

A final criticism that I will address is that the theory can be seen as unfair to those that are unable of holding their end of the contract. (Quinn 90). Because the theory provides every member of a society with natural rights in exchange for their compliance in the burdens of the social contract, an ethical dilemma can be raised if a person is found to violate their responsibilities under the social contract through any action or factor that is out of their control. However, I feel the theory does address this problem, quite simply: A rational, objective group of individuals would most likely decide that someone honestly incapable of living up to their obligations would best serve the community by being offered help, such as educating and raising children to be productive members of society, or having institutions or medical and psychological help for the mentally handicapped.

I believe this decision is that simple, even for examples that seem to raise a contradiction. To use the example in Ethics for the Information Age, it's noted that a drug addict who steals to feed his addiction can be both, a criminal and mentally ill, unable to control their behavior. However, this example ignores the fact that punishment can also be rehabilitation. Under the social contract theory, the appropriate response here could be to sentence the addict to mandatory rehab programs, or maybe a prison hospital where they can serve punishment for their crimes and still be helped at the same time. The fact that they consciously chose to induce a state of mental illness (by choosing to break the rules both legally and ethically by taking drugs) means that their behavior is not excusable - it is still punishable. However, since punishment would not necessarily fix the issue at hand, rehabilitation as part of the punishment is necessary and desirable - a group of rational people would probably agree on the rule, "the mentally ill must be helped when possible." Thus, two seemingly conflicting moral rules do not contradict as they appear to.

Because of these reasons, I conclude that I would most likely base my ethical thinking on social contract theory, if I had to choose one theory and only one. It is not perfect-like any ethical school of thought, it has strong points and weak and by no means should be used to alone base every ethical decision. However, if it were necessary, it is my opinion that this theory is more practical to use in day-to-day situations, as social contract theory would lead to the least amount of morally wrong decisions.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer