Social Contraction versus Ethical Egoism - Essay Example

Social Contraction vs. Ethical Egoism The need to describe or establish ground rules on how people behave or ought to behave led philosophers to theorize immensely. There are many theories that try to assert certain obligatory aspects in regard to morality with little success. Some of the main examples include social contraction theory and ethical egoism. However, each theory requires an analysis so as to declare it redundant or otherwise. Social contract theory recognizes that human beings value their self interests (Shafer-Landau 189). This theory also holds that it is alright to be this way; it is rational. However, in the real world, if everybody blindly followed their hearts desires then there would be chaos. To this situation, this theory calls for application of rationality from a different angle. This angle prescribes that people should cooperate with one another and cut down on the purely self serving pursuits. This aspect defines the social contract nature of this theory (Shafer-Landau 188). People will not live life to the fullest, but they will avoid a worse fate of being in constant upheaval with society. What constitutes upheaval? Economists answer this question through the hypothetical prisoner’s dilemma situation. In this situation, two individuals must undertake actions that are not beneficial to the other party. Since it is rational to do the best for ones self, then the individuals both undertake these actions knowing full well that the other party will suffer. In a life time, there are countless situations that mirror the conflicts in this hypothetical situation. Maximizing self interest as it turns out is not a worthwhile approach to life. People while be brutal indulging horrid actions just to stay ahead (Shafer-Landau 192). There will be no trust, hope or peace for those with the slightest urge to be “nice” hence the constant upheaval. Social contract theory lays the foundation for justification of moral rules, their functions and the need to enforce them. The social contract earlier mentioned needs rules that facilitate cooperation and provide for justice in the event that betrayal suffices. These rules require an enforcer. This essentially explains the need to have figures of authority that govern behavior. These persons can range from parents at home to the government. Form this explanation; it is clear that cooperation needs more than one person. As such, this theory describes morality as a social phenomenon (Shafer-Landau 194). In the same way, this theory justifies the existence of moral laws; it justifies breaking these laws. It provides that, in the event, that cooperation fails then there is no need to uphold the moral laws. On the other hand, the theory justifies punishment of the law breakers. From this theory’s strengths, critiques derive dooming weaknesses. A moral theory has the duty to promote doing the right thing. However, this theory entertains the possibility of having a rational wrong for instance when a contract is void. Also, the approach of using rationality to justify action is lacking. As observed by Shafer-Landau (204) if the consequences of an unjust action are not as far reaching as the benefits, then it is rational to act unjustly. Much as, Hobbes tries to define rationality to co-exist with virtue, this is only possible in a world where justice prevails. In the event that the world is in a “natural state” (Hobbes description of anarchy), then being rational means survival for the fittest. A second theory that tries to define the extents of morality in regard to human behavior is ethical egoism. Ethical egoism describes how humans ought to act. Ethical egoism further asserts that moral duty should rely on doing actions that reflect best self interest. In doing so, one should not avoid actions that help others but is not under any obligation to pursue self interest in regard to the well being of others. Despite this radical stand, ethical egoism clearly states that self interest is not merely pleasure seeking. Self interest encompasses real long lived non harmful benefits (Rachels 67). Ethical egoism relies on three main premises. The most crucial premise involves knowing ones goals. The intimacy an individual has with their goals puts them in a unique position to pursue them to their greatest extent. In light of this, it is not practical to set out on a mission to see to the needs of others. Secondly, charity is a form of intrusion to ones privacy as their needs are personal. To stay clear of such intrusions is a sure way of maintaining that individual’s dignity thereby sends a message that they are capable of running their affairs (Rachels 68). A second approach is somewhat an attack on altruism. Seeing as the value of life is extreme and limited, an individual should at all time strife to make the best of it. As such, altruism does not respect this unique state of life. Instead, it requires that individuals sacrifice what would have been a meaningful endeavor to engage in intrusive actions disguised as “beneficial to others” (Rachels 70). Finally, the third argument holds that ethical egoism utilizes common sense morality. This dictates that individuals should avoid doing wrong to others. Individuals should also hold true their end of any bargain to avoid disappointment in the event that tables turn (Rachels 72). Thomas Hobbes summarizes this last point with the reciprocal approach of for every action, expect an equal opposite reaction. Ethical egoism fails when it comes to situations where there is the conflict of interest. James Rachels (53) reflects that morality depends on realistic conceptions that describe what humans are capable of doing. As such morality should solve a situation brought about by conflict of interest. However, when it comes to ethical egoism, it is the duty of an individual to pursue their goals. In light of this, it is not the duty of individuals to step back and examine what others around him want. Therefore, there is no moral solution to conflicts of interest (Rachels 74). Another shortcoming of this theory is that it requires an individual to view their needs as more important than those of others. As such, it requires that the world divides into groups whereby one groups interests is more valued than the other groups interests. However, ethical egoists try to argue that individuals have different needs, but needs are either compatible, or in conflict, thereby, they interact. Secondly, to justify such a division, there has to be a justified reason and hence probable incentive for different treatment. Since there is no justified reason, ethical egoism is unacceptably arbitrary (Rachels 78). On one front, there are similarities between ethical egoism and social contract theory. Among the similarities is the fact that both theories focus on individuals self interests. However, social contract theory holds that these self interests need to be checked for harmonious coexistence of humans. On the other hand, ethical egoism holds that if everyone focuses on attaining their self interests then the world will be a better place. Despite the shortcomings of ethical egoism, in my opinion, it stands a better chance than social contract theory. The current world thrives on an individualistic approach to life. An excellent example is the capitalist ideology which until now describes the economic approach preferred by over three quarters of the world’s population. In the same way, the manner in which ethical egoism suggests that individual’s pursue their interests has a capitalistic appeal. For instance, both capitalism and ethical egoism allude to the privacy of an individual’s actions. However, capitalism does so in the sight of the consequences of ones financial undertakings. On the other hand, social contract theory suggests that people get involved in each business in light of the social contract. This in the wake the universal need for individualism, autonomy and the need to feel different is next to violation of individual’s privacy. In view of the purpose of ethics in society, ethical egoism does a better job than social contract theory. The third premise, that outlines the nature of ethical egoism states that; individuals should avoid doing wrong to others because they may suffer the same fate. In my view, this is a sure way of stating that punishment is inevitable. Social contract theory, on the other hand, seems to suggest that some wrongs are excusable or may go unpunished if the circumstances are right. Furthermore, supporters of the social contract theory use rationality to present the possibility of wrongs going unpunished. Rationality is ethical egoism, which holds that for every action, expect an equal opposite reaction. Both ethical egoism and social contract theory are clear on the difference between selfishness and self interests. However, only ethical egoism is clear on the objectives of self interests. These objectives should be realistic, non harmful and have the capability to focus on the future. As such, Ethical egoism provides a basis for the existence of moral ground that serves individual purposes. On the other hand, social contract theory postulates that, lack of a social contract and an enforcer of the social contract, an individual is not under any moral obligation. For instance, an individual living in an isolated island with no family under the social contract theory can drink themselves silly because they are not infringing on anyone and there are no rules. However, under ethical egoism, this individual will examine the effects of drinking too much and thereby, avoid doing so because of health concerns. Works Cited: Rachels, James. Elements of Moral philosophy. New York: Temple University Press, 1986. Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Read More