Contractarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #37

Today we explore the penultimate ethical theory in this unit: contractarianism. Hank explains Hobbes’ state of nature, implicit and explicit contracts, as well as the Prisoner’s Dilemma, and the benefits, and costs, of violating contracts.

--

--

Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?

[josephmatthews]

Point blank, cooperation is the backbone of human civilization. The reason we are the most successful species alive isn't just our intelligence it's our ability to organize and cooperate.

[MakeMeThinkAgain]

This is probably the best explanation of Hobbes I've run into.

[MoreAmerican]

As a hawaii islander I can say emphatically, yes, you can have too much avocado and mango lol

[oli.]

I JUST CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF PHILOSOPHY!!!

[joes]

The youtube comments section is an example of the "natural state"

[MagiciteHeart]

It really cracks me up when I click on a video that's been up less than a minute and there are already dislikes. Silly, ignorant people.

[kyleto_el_bandito]

"You get so many benefits out of this system like getting to drive on safe roads (*stares at giant pot holes that haven't been fixed in the 6+ months they've existed*) and getting to drink clean water" (*stares at flint michigan and the various towns and cities whos drinking water is now flammable because of fracking*)

[michaelstromer]

OMG thats already Episode #37. Thats 37 weeks since i started following this. Crazy how time goes by.

[Hecatonicosachoron]

I'm surprised that no prominent mention of Rousseau was made.

[Johannes]

The Purge movies series is a near perfect representation of Hobbes view of the "State of Nature" in man.

[shdhfgrtdych]

Am I the only libertarian who understands that corporations/businesses are entities that can do morally wrong things in the same way than an individual can? I don't know how other libertarians think that a market completely free of regulations will always do what is morally right. This includes environmental issues too

[JohnSmith-vihi]

What about the Sovereign and the Leviathan? They are critical components of Hobbes Social Contract since they're responsible for the enforcement of said contract.

[isabellabornberg]

hey, I'm writing an essay on this at the moment. perfect timing

[Strongbabiix]

I love Crash Course so much please never end

[rebekahnunes]

I think you agree to the speed limit when you get a licence though although I suppose you could argue if you don't get a licence you never agreed to anything lol

[djbslectures]

The text at 6:53 perfectly sums up why I have no patience with people who violate YouTube terms or the standards that individual creators set for their channels and then complain about having their videos or comments removed

[unfig]

This theory actually resonated with me a lot, and makes a lot of sense. I wonder if it can somehow work with moral relativism

[spanishinquisition]

I sometimes wake up and think what's the point

[ScarHydreigon]

I love talking about ethics and morality

[jmiquelmb]

I think contractarianism is an interesting approach that helps us understand our society. It explains why most people don't go live on a mountain alone like a wildling and avoid paying taxes. We may not like some rules, but overall we prefer to live in our social group (whether because it's better or by force of habit) than on our complete own. We're social animals. But I think it has some problems also:

For example, it seems to ignore our own personal morality. If everyone was purely selfinterested, we all would break the rules all the time when nobody watches. Sure, some people do, but it's not as common as it would be under this assumption.

Second, it's pretty difficult to know if both parts that agree on the contract are completely free to make a decision, or even more difficult to assume, if they have the same negotiating power. For example, I'd agree to pay 10k$ for a glass of water if I was dying on a desert. Both parts are better off after the deal: one has 10k$ more on their bank account, and the other is stil alive. But I think everyone can see how incredibly exploitative such a deal would be.

And third, I think it's false your claim that everybody would be better off outside of a system that enslaves them. In fact, if I recall correctly, there was a law in Rome, prohibiting slave owners to liberate them when they were old. While this may seem cruel, it was the opposite. By forcing the owners to keep them feed, you'll ensure their survival. An old poor homeless ex-slave would probably die on the streets pretty fast.

It's not fair by any means, but it shows that some people in need would accept to lose their freedom in order to survive. While a "voluntary" slavery system (even when it has never really existed, as most slaves couldn't decide to be set free) could work under the rules of contractarianism, it still feels wrong on a conventionally moral point of view, because you know those voluntary slaves can only choose living a miserable life, or death.