
Ethics Explainer: Social Contract
ArticleBig Thinkers + Explainers
BY The Ethics Centre 31 AUG 2016
Social contract theories see the relationship of power between state and citizen as a consensual exchange. It is legitimate only if given freely to the state by its citizens and explains why the state has duties to its citizens and vice versa.
Although the idea of a social contract goes as far back as Epicurus and Socrates, it gained popularity during The Enlightenment thanks to Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Today the most popular example of social contract theory comes from John Rawls.
The social contract begins with the idea of a state of nature – the way human beings would exist in the world if they weren’t part of a society. Philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that because people are fundamentally selfish, life in the state of nature would be “nasty, brutish and short”. The powerful would impose their will on the weak and nobody could feel certain their natural rights to life and freedom would be respected.
Hobbes believed no person in the state of nature was so strong they could be free from fear of another person and no person was so weak they could not present a threat. Because of this, he suggested it would make sense for everyone to submit to a common set of rules and surrender some of their rights to create an all-powerful state that could guarantee and protect every person’s right. Hobbes called it the ‘Leviathan’.
It’s called a contract because it involves an exchange of services. Citizens surrender some of their personal power and liberty. In return the state provides security and the guarantee that civil liberty will be protected.
Crucially, social contract theorists insist the entire legitimacy of a government is based in the reciprocal social contract. They are legitimate because they are the only ones the people willingly hand power to. Locke called this popular sovereignty.
Unlike Hobbes, Locke thought the focus on consent and individual rights meant if a group of people didn’t agree with significant decisions of a ruling government then they should be allowed to join together to form a different social contract and create a different government.
Not every social contract theorist agrees on this point. Philosophers have different ideas on whether the social contract is real, or if it’s a fictional way to describe the relationship between citizens and their government.
If the social contract is a real contract – just like your employment contract – people could be free not to accept the terms. If a person didn’t agree they should give some of their income to the state they should be able to decline to pay tax and as a result, opt out of state-funded hospitals, education, and all the rest.
Like other contracts, withdrawing comes with penalties – so citizens who decide to stop paying taxes may still be subject to punishment.
Other problems arise when the social contract is looked at through a feminist perspective. Historically, social contract theories, like the ones proposed by Hobbes and Locke, say that (legitimate) state authority comes from the consent of free and equal citizens.
Philosophers like Carole Pateman challenge this idea by noting that it fails to deal with the foundation of male domination that these theories rest on.
For Pateman the myth of autonomous, free and equal individual citizens is just that: a myth. It obscures the reality of the systemic subordination of women and others.
In Pateman’s words the social contract is first and foremost a ‘sexual contract’ that keeps women in a subordinate role. The structural subordination of women that props up the classic social contract theory is inherently unjust.
The inherent injustice of social contract theory is further highlighted by those critics that believe individual citizens are forced to opt in to the social contract. Instead of being given a choice, they are just lumped together in a political system which they, as individuals, have little chance to control.
Of course, the idea of individuals choosing not to opt in or out is pretty impractical – imagine trying to stop someone from using roads or footpaths because they didn’t pay tax.
To address the inherent inequity in some forms of social contract theory, John Rawls proposes a hypothetical social contract based on fundamental principles of justice. The principles are designed to provide a clear rationale to guide people in choosing to willingly agree to surrender some individual freedoms in exchange for having some rights protected. Rawls’ answer to this question is a thought experiment he calls the veil of ignorance.
By imagining we are behind a veil of ignorance with no knowledge of our own personal circumstances, we can better judge what is fair for all. If we do so with a principle in place that would strive for liberty for all at no one else’s expense, along with a principle of difference (the difference principle) that guarantees equal opportunity for all, as a society we would have a more just foundation for individuals to agree to a contract that in which some liberties would be willingly foregone.
Out of Rawls’ focus on fairness within social contract theory comes more feminist approaches, like that of Jean Hampton. In addition to criticising Hobbes’ theory, Hampton offers another feminist perspective that focuses on extending the effects of the social contract to interpersonal relationships.
In established states, it can be easy to forget the social contract involves the provision of protection in exchange for us surrendering some freedoms. People can grow accustomed to having their rights protected and forget about the liberty they are required to surrender in exchange.
Whether you think the contract is real or just a useful metaphor, social contract theory offers many unique insights into the way citizens interact with government and each other.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
MOST POPULAR
ArticleLifestyle + Health
Vaccines: compulsory or conditional?
ArticleBeing Human
Free speech has failed us
ArticleLaw + Human Rights
He said, she said: Investigating the Christian Porter Case
ArticleBig Thinkers + Explainers
Ethics Explainer: Ethics, morality & law

BY The Ethics Centre
The Ethics Centre is a not-for-profit organisation developing innovative programs, services and experiences, designed to bring ethics to the centre of professional and personal life.
5 Comments
The intuition for the need for societal rules and a government to enforce them is due to an implicit ‘contract’ with logic (i.e. the intuition that a government and its rules are a logical necessity) – not a contract between government and citizen. That is, the overwhelming majority of citizens intuitively recognize that it is logical that the things we desire are universally more valuable than the things we believe we need; we believe we need what we believe we need only as a path to, and because of, what we desire – it is logical that we view our desires as being more precious than what we need. Accordingly, it is logical that we utilize a mechanism to pool and coordinate our resources (which satisfy our needs) so that we can maximize our desires (what we want). Government and its rules are merely sought as a logical necessity – a mechanism of logically allocating resources to citizens and performing other duties of need, such as protection.
So whilst governments logically must exist and make logical rules to keep their citizens safe and efficiently realize their desires, and whilst in this contemporary era citizens must obey logical rules and challenge arbitrary rules, it is a misnomer that there is a direct and enduring contract between government and citizen, or that the latter will always possess a responsibility to participate in, or be aware of, the processes of the former. There will be a future in which technology logically governs in the stead of humans – autonomously, efficiently, and without the need for conscious attention or work from citizens.
ReplyDUTY OF CARE . What does it mean? Do parents have a Duty of Care it for their kids? Do farmers have it for the animals and plants on their land? Do humans have it for the earth we live on?
Justice Bromberg from the federal court thinks the government should have a Duty of Care for it’s citizens, even younger ones into the future. A group of kids asked him to consider the government’s Duty of Care to them as it approves coal mines [ensuring that more CO2 will be emitted into the atmosphere, causing climate chaos].
Sussan Ley, Scott Morrison, and our Government, as they are challenging the federal court’s decision, seem to be saying “No! We have no Duty of Care for the young people of Australia.” Well I disagree. I am one of the protesters from Extinction Rebellion’s “Burning Pram” Action. Let me know if you would like my article on this., thanks Ross
“This arrangement would require a level of control to be exercised on government that would require people participation in government decision making.”
“The quality of government depends on the level of public citizenship.”
Hi Anthony and Stan, I respectfully disagree with your respective premises. The quality of any government depends on its logicality – how logically it allocates resources to its citizens and how logically it is structured to perform its other duties, such as protection. It is a myth that logicality (good government) requires public participation in (or even awareness of) government processes. This myth evidently arose, and has been continually reinforced, throughout history by human corruption on occasions where a minority of humans were given the responsibility for governing the majority. But future governments, led by a responsible few or by AI programmed to govern according to strictly logical algorithms, need not have public participation (citizens overseeing what they believe they need) to govern strictly in accordance with the desires of the people. Put more simply: every citizen will always be an expert in what they want (desire) but no private individual really knows what they, in the context of a broader public, need. This is the logical purpose of government – to logically ascertain what people want and logically coordinate the provision of needs accordingly. There is no logical requirement for the conscious involvement of citizens during this process (though I understand that in this era they may need to be involved – to ensure accountability – and that in future eras, people may still want to be involved – out of the desire to do so).
https://www.purity.org/about-our-ideology-purismreg.html
ReplyThe quality of government depends on the level public citizenship.Rawls veil of ignorance does not depend on that quality.it is up to a proactive informed populace to get the govt they deserve.
Greek paricpatory democracy became unworkable when numbers of participants becamel large,so we now delegate a lot to government. But influence it a little by petitions and public reaction and ultimately by elections.
Solon said even the street beggar in ancient athens must be an active citizen else he does not deserve to live under that government.,so i sayto those claiming their freedom you are free to leave.
freedom comes with obligations.freedom they crywhenthey mean licence.
The theory of social contract has merit in the context of responsible government. Applied judiciously can achieve considerable benefit for the people provided government representatives responsibly carry out the stipulated requirements of the people. This arrangement would require a level of control to be exercised on government that would require people participation in government decision making. For example, under the current government most decisions are made by Cabinet (i.e., elected senior Ministers and PM). This arrangement excludes external representation and attendance.
Reply
Join the conversation
What do you have a social contract for?