Samenvatting
Summary Ethiek (Shafer-Landau) H13
- Vak
- Ethiek
- Instelling
- Universiteit Leiden (UL)
Summary of 5 pages for the course Ethiek at UL
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 3 van de 5 pagina's
Voorbeeld 3 van de 5 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Ethics – Normative Ethics: Doing the Right Thing – Chapter 13 – The SocialContract Tradition:
The Theory and Its Attractions
The Lure of Proceduralism
One of the hardest and deepest problems for ethical inquiry is this: how to begin? A
question naturally arises: can we justify our basic assumptions and defend the practice of
rejecting any moral theory that doesn’t agree with them? If a theory contradicts our basic
assumptions about right and wrong, why does that undermine the theory, rather than our
assumptions? Defenders of this approach claim that there is no other alternative. We
can’t prove that these assumptions are true. But that doesn’t make them illegitimate,
because the fundamental starting point in every area of thinking are beyond proof.
Many philosophers remain dissatisfied with this approach. They believe that we can justify
our basic moral views, rather than simply take them for granted. We can do that by
coming up with a procedure that will tell us the steps for distinguishing right from wrong.
The correct moral views are those that emerge from the correct procedure.
I call this sort of approach proceduralism. Make no moral assumptions, but instead
follow the correct procedure, and then see what the outcome is. The golden rule is a form
of proceduralism. So is rule consequentialism. So is Kant’s principle of universalizability.
They promise to explain and justify why slavery for example is immoral. They do this by
showing, respectively, that: (1) we wouldn’t like it if we were enslaved, (2) no optimific
social rule would permit slavery, or (3) no universalizable maxim would allow slavery.
There are many other proceduralist theories. Perhaps the most important of these is the
social contract theory, nowadays known as contractarianism: the view that morality
is based on a social contract.
The background of the Social Contract Theory
Contractarianism originated as a political theory, and only later developed into a theory
of morality. Its view of morality stems directly from that political ideal: actions are morally
right just because they are permitted by rules that free, equal, and rational people would
agree to live by, on the condition that others obey these rules as well.
Socrates explained that we are all by nature largely, or entirely, self-interested. This
points to an obvious problem. Everyone wants to be at the top of the heap, and only a
few can make it there. If we are rational, we will each agree to curb our self-interest and
cooperate with one another. We’ll do this conditionally – that is, on the condition that
others do so as well. If we all stop trying to get the better of each other, and instead
agree to seek a little less of ourselves, then we’ll all be better off. That is what reason and
morality require of us, according to the social contract theory.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma
Consider life’s basic scenario: there is intense competition for scarce resources. These
sorts of situations, in which everyone would be better off by scaling back their pursuit of
self-interest, are known as prisoner’s dilemmas. See the example on page 195-196.
The conclusion is that Al and Bob are going to betray each other. That’s certain. They’ll do
this because they know the odds, because they are self-interested, and because they are
rational. Why will they confess? Because no matter what his accomplice does, each
criminal will be better off by confessing.
This is real life. There are countless cases in which the rational pursuit of self-interest will
lead people to refuse to cooperate with one another, even though this leaves everyone
much worse off.
Cooperation and the State of Nature
,So why don’t competitors cooperate? The answer is simple: because it is so risky.
Englishman Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), the founder of modern contractarianism, was
especially concerned with one sort of prisoner’s dilemma. He invited the readers of his
magnum opus, Leviathan, to imagine a situation in which there was no government, no
central authority, no group with the exclusive power to enforce its will on others. He
called this situation the state of nature. And he thought it was the worst place you
could ever be. In his words, the state of nature is a “war of all against all, in which the life
of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. The Hobbesian state of nature is a
prisoner’s dilemma.
There is an escape from the state of nature, and the exit strategy is the same for all
prisoner’s dilemmas. We need two things: beneficial rules that require cooperation and
punish betrayal, and an enforcer who ensures that these rules are obeyed. The rules are
the terms of the social contract. In exchange for giving up all sort of freedoms, we gain
the many advantages of cooperation. But you need more than good rules of cooperation
to escape from a prisoner’s dilemma. You also need a way to make sure the rules are
kept. What’s needed is a powerful person (or group) whose threats give everyone
excellent reason to keep their word.
The Advantages of Contractarianism
Morality Is Essentially a Social Phenomenon
Moral rules are nothing other than special rules of cooperation, and when it comes to
cooperation, it takes at least two to tango. This explains why we have no self-regarding
moral duties (duties that apply only to oneself).
Contractarianism Explains and Justifies the Content of the Basic Moral Duties
On the contractarian account, the moral rules are ones that are meant to govern social
cooperation. When trying to figure out which standards are genuinely moral ones,
contractarians ask us to imagine a group of free, equal, and rational people who are
seeking terms of cooperation that each could reasonably accept. The rules they select to
govern their lives together are the moral rules.
John Rawls has us envision contractors in a veil of ignorance. This is an imaginary
device that erases all knowledge of your distinctive traits. The idea is to put everyone on
equal footing, so that the choices they make are completely fair. When placed behind a
veil of ignorance, or in some other condition of equality and freedom, what social rules
will rational people select? Probably killing, rape, etc. Contractarianism thus easily
accounts for why the central moral rules are what they are – rational, self-interested
people, free of coercion, would agree to obey them, so long as others are willing to obey
them, too.
The rules of cooperation must be designed to benefit everyone, not just a few. Biased
policies undermine the primary point of morality – to create fair terms of cooperation that
could earn the backing of everyone. The correct moral rules are those that free people
would endorse for their mutual benefit – not for the benefit of one group over another.
Contractarianism Offers a Method for Justifying Every Moral Rule
Contractarianism is a prime example of proceduralism. Contractarians have a method for
seeing whether certain actions are right or wrong. Contractarians do not assume that the
standard moral evils are bad; rather, they show why they are bad, by showing that
rational contractors, getting together to select mutually beneficial rules of cooperation,
would forbid such behavior. Contractarians offer a method for justifying every single
moral rule. Of course disagreements will arise when we apply this method.
Contractarianism Explains the Objectivity of Morality
, Contractarianism offers an attractive picture of the status of morality. Moral rules, on this
view, are objective. Thus contractarians have an answer to a perennial challenge: if
morality isn’t a human creation, where did it come from? Morality is the set of rules that
would be agreed to by people who are very like us, only more rational and wholly free,
and who are selecting terms of cooperation that will benefit each and every one of them.
Thus contractarians don’t have to picture moral rules as eternally true. The moral rules
are the outcomes of rational choice, tailored to the specifics of human nature and the
typical situations that humans find themselves in. this removes the mystery of objective
morality. Even if God doesn’t exist, there can still be objective values, so long as there are
mutually beneficial rules that people would agree to if they were positioned as equals,
fully rational and free.
Contractarianism Explains Why It Is Sometimes Acceptable to Break the Moral
Rules
Moral rules are designed for cooperative living. But when cooperation collapses, the
entire point of morality disappears. One way to put this idea is to say that every moral
rule has a built-in escape clause: do not kill, cheat, intimidate, and so on, so long as
others are obeying this rule as well. The basis of morality is cooperation. And that
requires trust. When that trust is gone, you are effectively in a state of nature. This
explains why you aren’t bound to keep promises made at gunpoint, or to be the only
taxpayer in a land of tax cheats.
More Advantages: Morality and the Law
Contractarianism Justifies a Basic Moral Duty to Obey the Law
The social contract theory also has plausible things to say about why we are sometimes
morally allowed to break the law. But first, the law enables us to escape from the state of
nature, and so to gain all of the good things that come from a stable, peaceful society.
You have a role to play here. Your obedience to the law helps to support the institutions
that make so many benefits possible. Therefore, we all have a basic moral duty to obey
the law.
The Contractarian Justification of Legal Punishment
Those who break the law are rightly punished. And the social contract theory has a
natural explanation of this. To be credible, they must usually be carried out. And so, when
people break the law, they need to be punished. Social contract theorists can also offer a
Kantian rationale for legal punishment. When laws are good, they set out terms of fair
play. When criminals break these rules, they take unfair advantages of their fellow
citizens. Punishment can do that. It can restore a level playing field.
Contractarianism Justifies the State’s Role in Criminal Law
The contractarian justification of punishment neatly answers two related questions that
have long perplexed philosophers: 1) why should the state, as opposed to private
citizens, be the one who brings criminal charges and administers punishments? And 2)
why should we have a criminal law in the first place? The social contract theory has
answers. The state’s ultimate purpose is to aid our escape from the state of nature. The
function of the civil law is the repair personal harms and wrongs; the function of the
criminal law is to preserve the state, and all of the advantages it provides. And that is
why criminal punishment is a state affair, rather than a private matter to be settled
between citizens.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper mlmvanloon. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €2,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 75323 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen