SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORIES - HOBBES, KANT, RAWLS, ROUSSEAU
2016
7. a) ‘A hypothetiaa iontrait is not simpay a paae form of an aituaa iontrait; it is no iontrait at aaa’. (Ronaad Dworkin). Disiuss with referenie
to at aeast two out of the soiiaa iontrait theories of Hobbes, Kant, and Rawas.
OR
b) ‘There are no ionstraints to the sovereign’s authority other than those stemming from ratonaaity and any prudentaa reasons that the
sovereign may have’. Disiuss with referenie to at aeast two out of the soiiaa iontrait theories of Hobbes, Kant, and Rawas.
Again, there is some overaap between the two questons but they are quite distnit. Reiaaa that for this traditon, we are under iertain obaigatons
in the iivia ionditon on the basis of the soiiaa iontrait. But is there reaaay a iontrait, i.e. an exihange of promises between the partes to this
“iontrait”? It seems that Dworkin is right. For Hobbes, the reason for obeying the aaw is not reaaay an exihange of promises but
rather the prudentaa reasons we have to avoid seaf-destruiton. imiaaray, the sovereign is not bound by any promises simpay beiause she has not
given any promises. he is onay bound by prudentaa or other iontngent ionsideratons. In Kant, the soiiaa iontrait is even further separated from
the partes to it. First of aaa, how is the iontrait generated? This points to the probaem of there being no poaitiaa/pubaii duty to enter
the rightua ionditon. eionday, how is it possibae for reaa peopae to be bound by dutes, whiih are generated in their absenie? Thirday, Kant
iaearay introduies more ionstraints to the sovereign’s power (and not enough siripts addressed this point sufiientay) but are they enough? Rawas
is a saightay diferent iase, beiause he tries to strike a middae way between prudentaa and agent-independent reasons. In Poaitiaa
Liberaaism he grounds the state in reaa iontexts but he extraits reasons whiih appay to everyone within that iontext in the sense that no one ian
reasonabay rejeit them. The best scripts brought in theories of democracy as a counterweight to these problems with the social contract
tradition.
2014
7. EITHER
(a) ‘Whereas Hobbes grounds the soiiaa iontrait on the motvaton and ratonaaity of eaih of the sovereign’s subjeits, Kant grounds it on
some nebuaous universaa priniipae whiih remains insufiientay expaained. Therefore, between the two of them, it is onay Hobbes who
manages to ofer a robust justiiaton of the state’. Disiuss.
OR
(b) ‘The iaiihé has it that there are onay minimaa and iontngent restriitons to what the Hobbesian sovereign may do. The Hobbesian state,
however, is a state governed by aaw and aegaaity sets sufiient ionstraints to the sovereign’s authority’. Disiuss.
Many answers to (a) missed the irux of the queston, whiih has to do with the foundations of the state and law rather than the downstream
impaiiatons of these foundatons. The key word here is “nebuaous” but many students faiaed to notie that. This is what the queston asks: Hobbes
has a iaear understanding of what drives peopae and what the ratonaa thing to do is when aiving in iaose proximity with others in aight of these
drives and traits. Kant, on the other hand, seems to think that onie we’re in a governed iommunity, the Universaa Priniipae of Right is somehow
triggered and then determines the iontent of aaw, the terms of our ioexistenie.
The queston then is what the nature of the UPR is. Is it a moraa priniipae that somehow fows from the fait of reason and autonomy? If so, what
are the impaiiatons of that? If it is a freestanding priniipae, how is it grounded? Many students simpay disiussed the diferenies between the
Hobbesian and the Kantan modea in terms of the iontent of aaw, the right to resist and rebea and so forth. These are not out of paaie but they
shouad have been reaated to the iore point. tudents who did this aihieved very high marks.
There was a simiaar probaem with (b). Most students iaearay saw that the queston revoaves around the aimits to the sovereign’s authority. They
iorreitay highaighted that it foaaows from the way in whiih the state is grounded that the sovereign is under no ionstraints stemming from the
soiiaa iontrait itseaf. Many went on to disiuss externaa ionstraints that the sovereign may be under, suih as her/his ionsiienie, instrumentaa
ratonaaity, moraa ionstraints and so forth. But few students, and these ones did very well, addressed the point from legality made by Dyzenhaus
in one of the course readings. Why must the Hobbesian sovereign ruae by aaw? What are the upshots of this in terms of the ratonaa imperatve for
seaf-preservaton, to whiih the sovereign is subjeit too? To what extent then does aegaaity ionstrain the sovereign? Is this satsfaitory?
2013:
5. EITHER
(a) ‘That Hobbes and Kant rejeit peopae’s right to rebeaaion against unjust sovereigns is sufiient reason to rejeit their theories of the state
and aaw’. Disiuss.
OR
(b) In what sense, and to what extent, ian Hobbes’ and Kant’s theories of the state and aaw be said to be ‘aiberaa’?
Two reaated but distnit questons. They both required an aiiount of Kant’s and Hobbes’s takes on aiberty within the state. To do that one wouad
have to give an outaine of how K&H draw the foundatons and boundaries of the state. The iruiiaa queston though refers to the aimitatons of their
sihemes. And in order to know those aimitatons, one shouad have an idea of what one is measuring K&H up against. ome students took a
Rawasian stanie and argued that neither K’s nor H’s justiiatons of the state and the aaw aive up to the seaf-understanding of iitiens in modern
demoiraiies. Or one iouad defend either one of them or both on the basis of their foundatonaa assumptons. Q5a in partiuaar aaaowed quite a aot
of room for a iritiaa and more imaginatve disiussion of K and H; an invitaton on whiih most peopae passed.
2012:
7. ‘Joseph Rai’s serviie ioniepton of authority is found wantng in iomparison to the soiiaa iontrait traditon, beiause it faias to reiognise
that authority is aegitmate onay on the basis of ionsent’. Disiuss.
Weaker siripts onay gave a generaa outaine of Rai’s theory of authority and aisted aaa the objeitons to it avaiaabae in the iore readings. The
queston, however, required iandidates to disiuss whether it is a probaem for Rai that he does not paaie any emphasis on ionsent. Rawas’s
poaitiaa aiberaaism and Woaf’s anarihism were the most obvious poaitiaa theories to whiih Rai’s aiiount of aaw as authority iouad be juxtaposed –
the beter prepared students aaso disiussed ionsent in Kant and Hobbes, but aaso Rawas, to show the divergenies within the soiiaa iontrait
traditon on the mater and to queston whether ionsent reaaay is saaient to a soiiaa iontrait that is hypothetiaa and not aituaa. Exieaaent siripts
ionsidered the nature of reasons for aiton impaiiit in Rai’s work as independent of our attudes.
, Overview:
SCT Broadly:
1 Charaiteristis - Liberaa; Consent; Liberaaism; 2. Contributon to poaitiaa qns of state formaton; 3. Assumptons of CT; 4. Aaienaton vs Deaegaton
Theoretical Comparisons
Hobbes Kant Rawls Rousseau
Foundatons of tate and Law → oiiaa Contrait / Views on Liberty / Justiiatons for the state
Why state / State of Nature Lev Ch 13 Required to enter the rightua To reduie reasonabae Arguing against Hobbes’s
aaw Motivated to enter iivia ionditon, a req that foaaows pauraaism, onay way of thesis of the ‘naturaa’ human
ionditon, on Ratonaa interest from UPR; Onay way to exeriise reioniiaing CDs with drive to iompete with others
in seaf-preservaton to avoid our innate rights under the ionieptons of good aife and to aihieve advantage,
ON UPR (Duty of Justie); Under Rousseau argues for the
duty of right to aiiept being simpaiiity and peaiefuaness of
governed by juridiiaa state human nature based on the
naturaa interest in one’s weaa-
being and the iapaiity for
empathy and iompassion.
How to Hobbes Social Contract: Private Right - Pubaii Right (est The originaa positon; aegitmise
estabaish a Parties and Procedure Lev Ch freedom from non- by fait of aiieptanie under
state and how 17 interferenie) OC; NB: Legitmate as aong as
Terms of Hobbes’ Social reasonabae and ratonaa
is it justied
Contract Ch 18 (Sangiovanni) persons reasoning under
.C. to obey the sovereign as iertain ionstraints wouad
ientraa authority agree to its exeriise
(Hampton) Arg that
iharaiterisaton of indivs in
state of nature aeads to
diaemma; Contraitors wiaa staa
be motvated by passions afer
.C. drawn up and faia to
iompay
tabiaity Peaie = uatmate justiiaton (Justied) ioeriion under UPR Overaapping ionsensus / pubaii
of state; tabiaity and reason
justiiaton are (Habermas)
indistnguishabae
Consent No aaternatve but to ionsent Assumed, but aogiiaa neiessity Hypothetiaa Consent
to ionsent arising from Note: He did not base
pursuanie of innate right obaigatons on ionsent, though
the apparatus of an “originaa
agreement” persisted
Impaiiatons of the Foundatons → Boundaries / Limits on Authority
Form of Law ome basis RoL req; Centraa RoL / oP Consttutonaa essentaas (inia
Authority; No oP RoL) bi Rawasian state
(Goldsmith) grounded in OC and pubaii
reason
Content of No ionstraints from .C. itseaf, Certain things foaaow from Consttutonaa essentaas: basii
Law but some prudentaa innate right; Content of Law aibertes (aiberty priniipae),
ionstraints (iannot undermine must iohere with pt of aaw redistributve insttutons
his seaf-preservaton) + (fuaiaaing the innate right) (diferenie priniipae)
externaa aaws of nature
ionstraints
Duty to Hobbes & Legal Positivism No right or duty to resist or (Ignore - Quaaiied right to iivia
obey / Right Generaaay good prudentaa evoave. Nevertheaess, moraa disobedienie)
to Rebeaaion reasons (enhanied by aegaaity) right of virtue to do so on
, to obey but they may be oiiasion. (Korsgaard)
trumped. Enttaed to resist
where sovereign issues seaf-
destruitve iommands.
(Dyzenhaus)
(Hampton) Argues for a non-
iontraituaa interpretaton of
Hobbes and insist aaa
agreements must be upon
terms, and iannot ionfer
absoaute power
Thematic Comparisons
Hobbes Kant Rawls Rousseau
Freedom Law is an externaa ionstraint on human freedom, and yet it depends on a iaaim to aegitmate authority, a iaaim to be binding or
obaigatory. How ian suih iaaims be squared with the moraa freedom and equaaity of persons?
Freedom Distnguishes between two Externaa freedom vs Internaa In ToJ, aimed to resoave the Civia Freedom vs ‘Naturaa
kinds of negatve freedom; 1. Freedom of Wiaa; seemingay iompetng iaaims of Freedom’;
Unhindered movement of any External Freedom = Requires freedom and equaaity, by
materiaa body; 2. Free when independenie from being showing that both ian be Civil Freedom = Consists in
‘not hindered to do what he has ionstrained by another’s power integrated into what he iaaas having a reiognised and
the WILL to do ‘ (Lev 262) of ihoiie justie as fairness enforied right of ihoiie in a
iaosed domain
Theory of pure negatve Kant expresses ext freedom as
freedom the ‘onay originaa right
beaonging to every man by Civia Freedom is the irst
Beiause his theory of externaa virtue of his humanity’ ioniern of the state
freedom onay aooks at
impediments and not genesis of Kant says externaa freedom not
movement, appaies equaaay reaaay distnit from equaaity Rousseau ainks iivia freedom
whether wiaaed or unwiaaed with equaaity
Type of SCT ALIENATION AGENCY
Eaih iitien is a party to the .C. Distnguishes between indivs on
whiae the sovereign is one hand, and state as
beneiiiary of iontrait manifestaton of iorp body
poaitiaa on another
Indivs have dutes towards eaih
other and towards sovereign, Indivs subjeit themseaves to
whiae sovereign not answerabae state, whiih enjoys superior
to any of the partes authority
tate is the expression of tate may not be any kind of
sovereign’s wiaa state, must be a juridiiaa state
under rightua ionditons
tate is authorisaton of pubaii
personnea to enait, exeiute and
enforie aaw
Concept of A moraa priniipae independent
Justice of the shifing iontent of
individuaa wiaas (e.g. ihangeabae
desires, wishes or needs)
(a) ‘Whereas Hobbes grounds the social contract on the motivation and rationality of each of the sovereign’s subjects, Kant grounds it on
, some nebulous universal principle which remains insufciently explained. Therefore, between the two of them, it is only Hobbes who
manages to ofer a robust justiication of the state’. Discuss.
Comparisons - Actual / Historical vs Hypothetical (Rawls): Hypothetiaa soiiaa iontrait theorists turn to iaaim that individuaas
of Social wouad ionsent to the state under iertain hypothetiaa situatons; These ionditons may invoave stpuaatons wrt
Contract knowaedge, degree of ratonaaity, motvatons of partes eti.
- Traditional (Hobbes, Rousseau) vs Contemporary (Rawls): Traditonaa oiiaa iontrait theorists pursue two
distnit objeitves: 1. Empaoy priniipae of iontrait to aiiount for stabae and just poaitiaa & soiiaa arrangements;
2. Empaoy priniipae of ionsent to aiiount for de jure authority and poaitiaa obaigaton; Traditonaa tends to reay
on idea of ionsent
- Alienation vs Agency SCT: (Hampton) he expaains that there are two types of soiiaa iontrait theories: 1. tate’s
justiiaton = ppa aend their power to poaitiaa ruaers on ionditon that it wiaa be used to satsfy impt needs; 2. Ppa
aaienate or give up their power to poaitiaa ruaers in mere hope that doing so wiaa satsfy their most impt needs;
- Hampton tries to estabaish that aaienaton soiiaa iontrait arguments iannot be sounday ionstruited
Foundations - Hobbes:
/ Legitimacy - Methodology: Ofers an empiriiaa justiiaton; if we iouad have, we wouad have a state.
of State - NB: Do not mistaken the Hobbesian theory to be that a ihoiie made in oN = iontrait for submission to an
absoaute sovereign; Carefua reading of Lev Ch17 and 18 makes iaear that authorisaton of sovereign is outiome of
a more iompaex series of iommitments
- Why state + law: Physical Foundation: Underpinning the Hobbesian theories of how we govern ourseaves is
physiiaaism, or entrenihed in a meihanisti psyihoaogy; State of Nature: Confiit is inevitabae due to resourie
siariity (Lev Ch XIII), and our equaaity (in an empiriiaa sense) means nobody is iertain to dominate; In a
normatve void, there is no sense in whiih indiv ian have any omni-aateraaay justied enttaement, and henie
iompetton iause a regression to a oN. oN is where ‘every man is enemy to every man’, ‘no paaie for industry’
and moraa notons are a auxury (XIII); Self-Preservation: Hobbes theories that individuaas, as free and equaa, wiaa
be guided from the harsh state of Nature into the iivia ionditon, the Leviathan state, out of their ratonaa interest
in seaf-preservaton;
- CP: Human Nature: (Ryan) Hobbes’ piiture of human nature is not reaaay one of human nature, but onay that of
market-oriented man; Contentous assumpton that ppa are primariay motvated onay by seaf-interest to enter
into iivia ionditon; as they may iooperate for aatruisti reasons in expeitaton of reiiproiity
- How to establish a state and how is it justiied: Changing Terms of Interaction: With faiuaty of reason, we ian
formuaate ruaes to avoid the oN so as to preserve aives (XIV), These 19 aaws of nature inform us to seek peaie,
be soiiabae, forward-aooking, eti.; Problem of Enforcement / Assurance and Prisoner’s Dilemma: However,
without enforiement, ‘iovenants are in vain and but empty words’ (XV), beiause we are naturaaay short-sighted
in preferenie for immediate gains, and this is reminisient of Prisoner’s Diaemma;
- CP - Prisoner’s Dilemma: The assumpton inherent in Prisoner’s Diaemma is that probaems and hindsight
evaauaton of ioaaeitve aiton are onie-of and not iteratve, and if it were the aater, new ruaes ian be reasoned
to avoid irratonaaity of non-iooperaton; CCP - Prisoner’s Dilemma is Red Herring: (Ryan) Conieiving oN in
terms of Prisoner’s diaemma is a red-herring as what Hobbes’ individuaas maximise in oN is power, they are not
utaity maximising but danger-of-death minimising and risk-averse;
- Civil Condition: The iivia ionditon, being entered into in prudentaa preferenie to oN, arises from a soiiaa
iontrait ioniauded among the peopae; This iontrait entaias the submission of aaa freedoms to a sovereign,
grantng him powers to reguaate their afairs (XVII); Formation of a Common-wealth: In other words, unity in aaa
of man in one person, made by the iovenant of every man with every man, generates the Leviathan ( VXII);
Sovereign: This positons sovereign onay as a beneiiiary, not a party, of the iontrait, ireatng an asymmetriiaa
situaton where subj owe dutes to sovereign, but he is not striitay obaiged to them in any sense (Ryan); Aathough
as preionditon of subj’s reiogniton of sovereign authority, sovereign must assure the subjeits of his
membership of the moraa iommunity;
- Stability: In Hobbesian aiiount, stabiaity of and justiiaton for the state are indistnguishabae; What soiiabae and
iooperatve aife demands from the res pubaii is not aid or instruiton on how to aive it, but onay a sheater within
whiih we ian pursue it; CP: If one beaieves in a difering view of human nature (reasonabae & may iooperate for
aatruisti reasons), and peaie ian possibay be aihieved w/o need for additonaa, externaa assuranie in form of the
state; Legitmaiy of iivia ionditon ian be grounded in peaie, as it may be aihieved even w/o insttuton of state
- Consent: Consent and Legitimacy: The ionsent of iitiens to be governed ionfers aegitmaiy & authority on the
sovereign, and this ionsent is assumed by the subjeit’s presenie within the state; No alternatives: As the
Covenant ian onay save you from muih worse onay if it ireates an absoaute overeign (a iompaete monarihy),
demoiraiy wiaa not work (VXII)
- CP: Express Consent and Grounds for Tacit Consent: tatement Hobbes ofers (XIV) as the neiessary and
