Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Defenders of social contract theory point out that the social contract is a theo-
retical notion that is supposed to explain the rational process through which com-
munities adopt moral guidelines. As John Rawls puts it, social contract agreements
are hypothetical and nonhistorical. They are hypothetical in the sense that they are
what reasonable people “could, or would, agree to, not what they have agreed to”
[26, p. 16]. They are nonhistorical because they “do not suppose the agreement has
ever, or indeed ever could actually be entered into” [26, pp. 16-17]. Furthermore,
even if it could be entered into, that would make no difference. The reason it would
make no difference is because the moral guidelines are supposed to be the result of
analysis (facts and values plus logical reasoning), not history. Social contract theory
is
not
cultural relativism in disguise.
2.
Some actions can be characterized in multiple ways.
This is a problem social contract theory shares with Kantianism. Some situations are
complicated and can be described in more than one way. Our characterization of a
situation can affect the rules or rights we determine to be relevant to our analysis.
3.
Social contract theory does not explain how to solve a moral problem when the analysis
reveals conflicting rights.
This is another problem social contract theory shares with Kantianism. Consider
the knotty moral problem of abortion, in which the mother's right to privacy is
pitted against the fetus's right to life. As long as each of these rights is embraced by
one side in the controversy, the issue cannot be resolved. What typically happens in
debates is that advocates on one side of the issue “solve” the problem by discounting
or denying the right invoked by their adversaries.
4.
Social contract theory may be unjust to those people who are incapable of upholding
their side of the contract.
Social contract theory provides every person with certain rights in return for that
person bearing certain burdens. When a person does not follow the moral rules, he
or she is punished. What about human beings who, through no fault of their own,
are unable to follow the moral rules?
A response to this objection is that there is a difference between someone
who deliberately chooses to break a moral rule and someone who is incapable of
understanding a rule. Society must distinguish between these two groups of people.
People who deliberately break moral rules should be punished, but people who
cannot understand a rule must be cared for.
However, this response overlooks the fact that distinguishing between these two
groups of people can be difficult. For example, how should we treat drug addicts
who steal to feed their addiction? Some countries treat them as criminals and put
them in a prison. Other countries treat them as mentally ill people and put them in
a hospital.
These criticisms demonstrate some of the weaknesses of social contract theory.
Nevertheless, social contract theory is logical and analytical. It allows people to explain
why a particular action is moral or immoral. According to our criteria, it is a workable
