6 Chapter 6: Bound by Agreement—The Principles of Social Contract Theory

Welcome to the sixth chapter of our journey through ethical philosophy, where we will dive into the fascinating world of Social Contract Theory. According to this approach to ethics, the reason that we should abide by (just) laws and ethical norms is because these are the rules that we would “agree to”.

To get us started, we will take you on a journey to the far-off planet of Equilium, in our opening story, “The Veil of Ignorance.” Here, a society of diverse beings, known as Equilibrians, will take us through a unique experiment inspired by the theories of the famous philosopher, John Rawls.

From there, we’ll come back to Earth to understand how thinkers of the past, like Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke, conceptualized social contracts and how these ideas shape our societies today. We will also discuss the concept of the “general will” and delve into the principles of justice, fairness, and individual rights.

Next, we’ll revisit Rawls’ idea of ‘justice as fairness’ and explore how these theories have been applied, critiqued, and expanded upon in contemporary debates within political philosophy. We will also review the Hobbesian and Libertarian perspectives and how they contribute to the dialogue on social contracts.

Throughout this chapter, we encourage you to challenge your preconceived notions, question established norms, and reflect upon the invisible agreements that shape our lives and societies.

Ready for the journey? Let’s set out to explore the invisible ties that bind us–the principles of Social Contract Theory.

Story: The Veil of Ignorance

Once upon a time, in a corner of the Universe that was rather confused, a planet called Equilium was host to a peculiar experiment. You see, the inhabitants of Equilium were a diverse group of sentient beings who had a remarkable penchant for fairness. They were collectively known as the Equilibrians. The Equilibrians were tired of the constant bickering and infighting that had come to define their existence. Desperate for a solution, they turned to the wisdom of an ancient philosopher who had been in cryogenic storage for centuries, Professor John Q. Rawls.

Upon being unfrozen, Professor Rawls looked around, blinked, and observed the bickering Equilibrians with a touch of melancholy. “Ah, I see you have a problem,” he said. “But fear not, for I have a solution: the Original Position.”

The Equilibrians, having tried everything from democracy to interpretative dance in an attempt to govern their society fairly, were more than willing to give the Original Position a try.

And so, Professor Rawls instructed them to create a grand device known as the “Veil of Ignorance,” which, once activated, would temporarily erase any knowledge of their individual identities, social status, and physical characteristics. The Equilibrians, despite their many differences, were all equally adept at building contraptions, and so they quickly assembled the Veil.

As they gathered in the Great Hall of Equilibrium, the air was thick with anticipation. The beings shuffled nervously, their tentacles, paws, and cybernetic appendages fidgeting as they prepared to engage the Veil. Professor Rawls stepped forward and addressed the assembled crowd.

“Remember,” he said, “once you pass through the Veil, you will forget who you are. Your task is to design the principles of justice that will govern your society. But you must do this without knowing who you will be when you emerge on the other side.”

With a flourish, Professor Rawls activated the Veil. One by one, the Equilibrians stepped through, each emerging with no memory of their previous selves. They looked around at the motley assortment of beings and realized they could no longer distinguish between rich and poor, intelligent and less so, or even what species they had been.

Together, they set to work devising a new social contract, guided by the idea that they might end up as any one of their fellow beings. The discussions were surprisingly civil and lighthearted, with some beings even cracking interdimensional jokes that only made sense if you were simultaneously in two different parallel universes.

Hobbesia’s Argument for Absolute Monarchy

Among the beings that entered the Veil of Ignorance, there was one character, named Hobbesia, who brought with her a deep-rooted admiration for the ideas of Thomas Hobbes. Rather than seeking to maximize happiness or protect rights, she argued for a strong central authority, reminiscent of Hobbes’ concept of the Leviathan. Her reasoning was that in the absence of an absolute ruler, the beings of Equilium would be trapped in a state of nature, where life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

Before stepping through the Veil of Ignorance, Hobbesia was a well-respected scholar, known for her keen intellect and in-depth understanding of political philosophy. She was born into a family of humble means, but her exceptional mind earned her a scholarship to the prestigious Academy of Universal Thought. There, she encountered the works of Thomas Hobbes, and his ideas resonated deeply with her.

Her experiences growing up in a chaotic and unpredictable environment led her to believe that strong central authority was necessary for a functioning society. Despite having forgotten her past, her admiration for Hobbes’ philosophy remained, and she continued to argue for absolutism in the Original Position.

Hobbesia made her case by explaining that, once the Veil was lifted, the beings would remember their differences and conflicts. In such a diverse society, she argued, fear and distrust would lead to a state of perpetual strife. She contended that only an absolute ruler, a Leviathan, could maintain order and prevent a descent into chaos.

Hobbesia, her appearance reflecting deep shades of red and black, symbolizing the dangers of chaos and instability, began to provide concrete examples of the problems she hoped to address through her proposal of an absolute ruler.

Example 1: Resource Allocatio. Conflicts In their diverse society, various groups of beings had evolved to rely on different resources for survival. Once the Veil was lifted, beings would remember their specific needs and preferences, leading to potential conflicts over the control and distribution of these resources. Hobbesia argued that without a centralized authority, these conflicts could escalate into violent struggles and unrest.

For instance, two factions might claim the same energy-rich region to fuel their technology and habitats. Without a strong central authority to mediate and enforce decisions, these factions might engage in a destructive arms race, leading to suffering and instability for all beings of Equilium.

Example 2: Cultural and Ethical Disagreements. Equilium was home to a multitude of cultures and belief systems. Hobbesia cautioned that once their memories were restored, deep-seated disagreements over values and ethics could surface, potentially resulting in strife and polarization. For example, some beings might adhere to a belief system that prioritized collective happiness, while others might value individual rights and liberties above all else.

Hobbesia argued that only a Leviathan, an absolute ruler, could maintain order and prevent these disagreements from escalating into violent conflicts. A powerful central authority would be capable of enforcing a shared set of rules and norms that would ensure the stability and continuity of their society.

Despite the vivid examples Hobbesia provided, her fellow beings remained concerned about the dangers of tyranny and the abuse of power in an absolutist regime. They emphasized the importance of devising a social contract that would balance the need for security with the protection of individual rights and liberties.

As the Equilibrians continued to debate and refine their social contract, they incorporated elements from Hobbesia’s absolutist approach, but with checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power and potential abuse. This compromise allowed their society to maintain order and stability while also preserving individual freedoms and fostering a culture of cooperation and mutual respect.

Utilon and the Greatest Good

As the Equilibrians continued to debate the principles of justice that would govern their society, a new character emerged from the crowd. His name was Utilon, a rotund and jovial being with a mane of soft fur, large expressive eyes, and multiple arms that seemed to move independently of one another.

Utilon was a renowned economist in his previous life, having spent years studying the intricacies of resource allocation and the pursuit of happiness. Although he had forgotten his past accomplishments after passing through the Veil of Ignorance, his intuitive understanding of utilitarianism persisted.

As the beings listened attentively, Utilon presented his argument for a society based on the principles of utilitarianism. He asserted that the ultimate goal should be to maximize happiness and minimize suffering for the greatest number of beings. To achieve this, Utilon proposed that they create a social contract with a focus on policies and institutions that would ensure the greatest overall good.

“Rights,” Utilon exclaimed, “are nothing more than nonsense on stilts! They are abstract concepts that distract us from our true purpose: the pursuit of happiness for the many. A society built upon the principles of utilitarianism would make decisions based on what brings the most happiness and the least suffering, rather than adhering to a rigid set of so-called ‘rights.'”

He offered a concrete example: In a situation where resources were scarce, a utilitarian society might allocate them to projects that would benefit the majority, even if it meant violating the rights of small number. Utilon argued that such an approach would lead to the greatest overall happiness, as more beings would benefit from the resources. Some of the Equilibrians were captivated by Utilon’s vision of a society driven by the pursuit of happiness. They imagined a world where their decisions were based on the common good and the interests of the many, rather than on the protection of individual rights.

However, others raised concerns about the potential consequences of a purely utilitarian approach. They argued that such a system could lead to the rights and needs of minority groups being sacrificed for the greater good, resulting in the oppression and marginalization of vulnerable beings.

Egalita, in particular, pointed out that a society solely focused on maximizing happiness could justify the violation of individual liberties if it served the interests of the majority. She emphasized the importance of a social contract that balanced the pursuit of happiness with the protection of individual rights and liberties, ensuring that all beings were treated with fairness and dignity.

The Equilibrians continued to deliberate, carefully considering the merits and drawbacks of each philosophical approach. As they worked to craft their social contract, they sought to incorporate elements of utilitarianism, while also addressing the concerns of those who feared the consequences of sacrificing individual rights and liberties for the greater good.

Egalita and the Difference Principle

As the Equilibrians continued to deliberate on the principles that would guide their society, another character, Egalita, stepped forward. She was a humanoid figure with a soothing voice and expressive features, her eyes filled with wisdom and kindness. Egalita’s outer appearance changed colors to reflect her emotions, and she emanated an aura of calm and balance.

In her life before the Veil of Ignorance, Egalita was a passionate advocate for social justice and a devoted student of John Rawls. Although she had forgotten her past, her deep understanding of liberal egalitarianism remained intact. As the beings listened intently, Egalita made her case for a society built on the principles of liberal egalitarianism.

Egalita began by defending a scheme of individual rights grounded in Rawls’ own argument. She explained that a just society must be based on a set of basic rights and liberties that are guaranteed to every individual, regardless of their circumstances. She referred to Rawls’ two principles of justice:

• The principle of equal basic liberties: Each person should have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. These liberties include political freedom, freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of thought and conscience, and the rule of law.
• The difference principle: Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and (b) attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

Egalita emphasized that the difference principle did not seek to eliminate all inequalities, as doing so might hamper innovation, creativity, and the overall progress of society. Instead, she argued that by adopting the difference principle, the Equilibrians could create a society where inequalities were justified only if they led to the betterment of everyone, especially the least advantaged.

She explained that in a society governed by the difference principle, resources and opportunities would be distributed more equitably, reducing extreme disparities in wealth, power, and influence. This, in turn, would promote social cohesion and stability, as everyone would have a vested interest in the well-being of their fellow beings. She gave the following examples:

Example 1: Energy Crystals In their society, energy crystals were a rare and valuable resource, used to power advanced technology and life-support systems. Under absolute egalitarianism, these crystals would be distributed evenly among all beings, regardless of their specific needs, leading to potential inefficiencies and waste.

In contrast, a utilitarian approach would allocate the crystals to those who could generate the most overall happiness or societal productivity, which could result in a concentration of resources in the hands of a few.

Under the difference principle, however, the distribution of energy crystals would prioritize the needs of the least advantaged, ensuring they had access to essential life-support systems and opportunities for social mobility. At the same time, incentives for discovering and harnessing new energy sources would be maintained, promoting innovation and benefiting society as a whole.

Example 2: Intergalactic Education Centers. Equilium’s Intergalactic Education Centers offered cutting-edge training in various fields, from advanced engineering to telepathic communication. Under absolute egalitarianism, all beings would have equal access to these centers, regardless of their aptitude or interest in the subjects taught, leading to potential inefficiencies and underutilization of resources.

A utilitarian approach would prioritize allocating spots at these centers to those who could provide the most significant contributions to overall happiness or societal productivity, potentially leaving behind those who lacked access to early opportunities.

However, the difference principle would ensure that the least advantaged beings had a fair chance to attend these Intergalactic Education Centers, fostering social mobility and equal opportunities. At the same time, it would recognize that some inequalities in access might be necessary to maintain the high quality of education and attract top talent to these institutions.

These concrete examples demonstrated how the difference principle could lead to a more just and equitable society, by balancing the need for fairness and social mobility with the recognition that some inequalities could serve a greater purpose. The Equilibrians appreciated Egalita’s insights and incorporated the difference principle into their social contract, laying the foundation for a prosperous and harmonious society.

Reflective Equilibrium

As the Equilbrians concluded their deliberations within the Original Position, they reached a consensus in favor of Rawlsian liberal egalitarianism. They believed that this approach best balanced individual rights, social cooperation, and the needs of the least advantaged members of their society.

Once they stepped out from behind the Veil of Ignorance, the Equilbrians found themselves back in their diverse and complex society. Their memories of their individual backgrounds, abilities, and preferences returned, but they remained committed to the principles of justice they had agreed upon.

In their efforts to implement the principles of liberal egalitarianism, the Equilbrians soon discovered the importance of reflective equilibrium. As they sought to apply their chosen principles to real-life situations, they encountered new challenges and complexities that required them to refine their understanding of justice continually. Some of the more memorable issues they had to deal included the following:

• The AI Rights Dilemma: The Equilbrians’ society was home to advanced artificial intelligences (AIs) with varying degrees of sentience and autonomy. The Equilbrians initially struggled to apply their principles of justice to these non-human entities. Through reflective equilibrium, they came to recognize the moral significance of sentient AIs and gradually extended rights and protections to them, ensuring that AIs could also participate in society and contribute to the common good.
• The Terraforming Conflict: The Equilbrians faced a dilemma when they discovered a distant, uninhabited planet with rich resources and the potential for terraforming. While the resources could significantly benefit their society, especially the least advantaged, terraforming the planet would also destroy unique ecosystems and biodiversity. Through a process of reflective equilibrium, the Equilbrians developed new environmental principles that balanced the need for resource acquisition with the imperative of preserving the planet’s ecosystems.
• The Genetic Enhancement Debate: The Equilbrians’ society had access to advanced genetic technologies that allowed for the enhancement of physical and cognitive abilities. While some argued that these enhancements could improve overall well-being and even help address social inequalities, others worried about the ethical implications and the potential for creating an even more stratified society. Through reflective equilibrium, the Equilbrians devised policies that allowed for responsible use of genetic enhancements while ensuring that the benefits were equitably distributed and that the rights of those who chose not to undergo enhancements were protected.
• The Intergalactic Migration Crisis: The Equilbrians encountered a massive influx of refugees from a distant galaxy fleeing war and persecution. Although they were committed to the principle of fair equality of opportunity, they faced challenges in integrating the new arrivals into their society while still addressing the needs of their most vulnerable citizens. Reflective equilibrium led the Equilbrians to develop innovative solutions that balanced the needs of both the refugees and their existing population, fostering social cohesion and solidarity in the face of adversity.

The Equilbrians engaged in an ongoing process of reflection and adjustment, seeking to harmonize their principles with their intuitions and the realities of their society. Through this process of reflective equilibrium, they aimed to create a more just and equitable society that respected the rights, needs, and aspirations of all its members.

Over time, the Equilbrians learned that the pursuit of justice was not a one-time decision but an ongoing journey. They recognized that their society would always face new challenges, and they embraced their responsibility to adapt and refine their understanding of justice to meet those challenges. In doing so, the Equilbrians came to embody the spirit of liberal egalitarianism, working tirelessly to create a society where everyone could flourish and thrive.

Discussion Questions

• What are the key differences between the philosophical approaches of Hobbesia, Utilon, and Egalita in the story? How do these approaches reflect the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, utilitarianism, and liberal egalitarianism, respectively?
• How does the concept of Rawls’ original position and the Veil of Ignorance play a role in the Equilibrians’ decision-making process? What is its significance in the formation of their social contract?
• In the story, Egalita argues for the difference principle as a way to address social and economic inequalities. What are the main benefits and potential drawbacks of adopting the difference principle in a society?
• Hobbesia’s proposal of an absolute ruler, or Leviathan, to maintain order and stability raises concerns about tyranny and abuse of power. How can a society balance the need for security with the protection of individual rights and liberties?
• Utilon’s argument for a utilitarian society prioritizes the overall happiness of the majority, but it raises concerns about the rights and needs of minority groups. How can a social contract ensure that the pursuit of happiness does not lead to the oppression and marginalization of vulnerable beings?
• What are the implications of the Equilibrians’ decision-making process for our own society? How can the philosophical concepts presented in the story inform our understanding of justice, fairness, and the role of government in modern societies?
• Are there any other philosophical approaches that the Equilibrians could have considered when crafting their social contract? How might these alternative perspectives have influenced their decision-making process?

Big Idea: Social Contract Theory

Social Contract Theory is a philosophical concept that seeks to understand the origin and legitimacy of a government or a society’s authority over its citizens. It posits that individuals come together and voluntarily agree to form a society, surrendering certain freedoms in exchange for protection, stability, and the enjoyment of other benefits provided by the state or the society. This voluntary agreement forms the basis of the social contract. Some major thinkers in the history of social contract theory include:

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): The War of All Versus All

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), an English philosopher and political theorist, is best known for his book Leviathan (1651), in which he expounds an influential formulation of social contract theory. Hobbes’s social contract theory is foundational to western political philosophy and has shaped the development of liberal political thought.

In Hobbes’ political philosophy, egoism plays a central role. He posits that human beings are fundamentally self-interested creatures. This perspective, often referred to as psychological egoism, suggests that all human actions are motivated by a desire for personal benefit or satisfaction. He then imagines these selfish being in a state of nature, a hypothetical condition characterized by the absence of political authority. In this state, individuals are entirely free, but their freedom is perilous because there are no laws to restrain human behaviour. Hobbes famously describes this state as a life that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” For instance, imagine a society without laws or law enforcement where everyone is free to do as they please. This might seem liberating at first, but it would quickly become dangerous as there would be no protections against theft, violence, or any form of harm. This is the state of nature as Hobbes envisages it.

To escape the state of nature, individuals enter into a social contract. This is a mutual agreement to relinquish certain rights and abide by a common set of rules for the benefit of safety and order. In Hobbes’s view, individuals collectively agree to establish a sovereign authority to enforce these rules, thereby ensuring peace and social cooperation. Consider a group of people deciding to form a neighborhood watch to prevent crime. Each person agrees to take turns patrolling and to follow certain rules, like not stealing from each other. In return, they all benefit from increased safety. This is a simple example of a social contract.

The sovereign authority established by the social contract, according to Hobbes, must be absolute and indivisible. It could be a monarch, an assembly, or a group ruling in the interest of the people. The sovereign’s role is to maintain order and protect the people from the state of nature. However, the sovereign is not a party to the contract and is not subject to the laws that govern the people. For example, in a democratic country, the government (sovereign) is elected by the people to enforce laws and maintain order. The government has the power to enact laws that the citizens must follow, but the government itself is not bound by these laws in the same way.

Hobbes advocates for an absolute monarchy as the most effective form of this sovereign authority. He argues that a single, undivided ruler is best equipped to maintain peace and prevent the return to the state of nature. The absolute monarch, according to Hobbes, would have the power to make laws, judge disputes, and enforce punishments, all in the interest of preserving peace and social order. However, Hobbes’ support for absolute monarchy is not based on divine right or heredity, but rather on the practical need for a strong, central authority to manage the inherent self-interest of individuals. His theory is a response to the chaos and uncertainty of the state of nature, proposing a solution that prioritizes security and order above all else.

Jean-Jacques Rosseau and the “General Will”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) was a pivotal figure in the history of philosophy, particularly within the realm of political philosophy. His work significantly influenced the French Revolution and the development of modern political, sociological, and educational thought.

Rousseau’s political philosophy, as outlined in his works “The Social Contract” and “Discourse on Inequality,” centers around the concept of popular sovereignty. This idea posits that the only legitimate political authority is the one consented to by the people, who are the sovereign. This popular sovereignty expresses itself through the “general will”. This is not merely the aggregate of individual wills but rather the collective will that aims at the common good or common interest. It is the will ofthe sovereign that aims at the common good. Finally, Rousseau introduces the idea of “civil liberty”. According to Rousseau, by entering into the social contract, individuals replace their physical freedom with civil liberty, which is limited by the general will.

Rousseau’s ideas stand in contrast to those of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Hobbes, in his “Leviathan,” argues that the state of nature is a state of war, and thus, individuals need a strong sovereign to maintain peace. Rousseau, on the other hand, believes that humans are peaceful in their natural state, and it is society that corrupts them. In comparison to Locke, who also advocates for government by consent, Rousseau takes a more collective approach. While Locke’s government aims to protect individual rights and property, Rousseau’s government is guided by the general will, which may not always align with individual desires.

John Locke (1632-1704): Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Property

John Locke’s political philosophy, often referred to as Lockean contract theory, is a significant extension of Thomas Hobbes’ social contract theory. While both philosophers agree on the necessity of a social contract to ensure societal order, Locke’s theory introduces key concepts such as natural rights, the Lockean proviso, and the importance of consent.

In contrast to Hobbes, who posits that individuals in the state of nature would willingly surrender all their rights to a sovereign in exchange for security, Locke argues that individuals possess inalienable natural rights. These rights, which include the right to life, liberty, and property, are inherent to individuals and cannot be surrendered entirely to the government. Locke’s theory asserts that the primary purpose of the government is to protect these natural rights.

The Lockean proviso is a principle related to property rights. Locke posits that individuals have a right to appropriate natural resources as long as they leave “enough and as good” for others. This principle is a significant departure from Hobbesian philosophy, which does not explicitly address the issue of property rights. The Lockean proviso introduces a moral constraint on acquisition, emphasizing the importance of considering the welfare of others when claiming property.

Another key aspect of Locke’s contract theory is the emphasis on consent. Locke argues that the legitimacy of the government rests on the consent of the governed. This contrasts with Hobbes’ theory, which suggests that individuals would consent to absolute authority under a sovereign to escape the state of nature. Locke, however, posits that individuals would only agree to form a government that respects their natural rights. This concept of consent is crucial in Locke’s theory as it underpins the idea of a government’s responsibility towards its citizens and the citizens’ right to revolt if the government fails to uphold its end of the social contract. Locke’s ideas were widely shared by the “Founding Fathers” of the American Revolution (though they substituted “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” for “life, liberty, and pursuit of property”.

John Rawls (1921-2002): Justice as Fairness

John Rawls, an influential political philosopher of the 20th century, proposed a unique version of contract theory that significantly differs from the traditional versions of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. His theory is often referred to as “Justice as Fairness” and is primarily outlined in his works “A Theory of Justice” and “Political Liberalism”.

• Original Position and Veil of Ignorance: Rawls’ theory begins with the concept of the “Original Position“, a hypothetical situation where individuals select the principles of justice that will govern their society. In the Original Position, individuals are behind a “Veil of Ignorance“, meaning they are unaware of their personal characteristics, social status, talents, or life goals. This ensures that the principles of justice chosen are fair and unbiased.
• Justice as Fairness: Rawls’ theory of justice is often referred to as “Justice as Fairness”. He proposes two principles of justice:
• The first principle guarantees the equal basic liberties for each person, such as freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, and freedom from arbitrary arrest.
• The second principle, known as the “Difference Principle”, states that social and economic inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society. This principle reflects Rawls’ belief in the importance of reducing inequality and promoting social justice.
• Political Liberalism: In his later work, “Political Liberalism”, Rawls further develops his theory to address the problem of how a stable and just society of free and equal citizens can live in peace when deeply divided by reasonable but incompatible religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines. He proposes that a political conception of justice should be independent of such comprehensive doctrines, and should be able to gain the support of an overlapping consensus of reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines.
• Difference Principle: The Difference Principle is a key component of Rawls’ theory. It states that social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both: (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

Rawls’ contract theory, with its emphasis on fairness, equality, and consideration for the least advantaged, represents a significant departure from the traditional contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. His work has had a profound impact on political philosophy and continues to be a major topic of discussion and debate.

What’s In the “Contract”? Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy

John Rawls’ theory of “Justice as Fairness” has been a significant influence on “left liberals” and their policy arguments. The principles of Rawls’ theory align with the core values of left liberalism, such as equality, fairness, and social justice. Here are a few ways in which Rawls’ ideas have been used to argue for certain policies:

• Healthcare: Rawls’ Difference Principle, which advocates for social and economic inequalities to be arranged to benefit the least advantaged, has been used to argue for universal healthcare. Left liberals argue that healthcare is a basic right and that a just society should ensure that all its members, especially the least advantaged, have access to healthcare services. This aligns with Rawls’ belief in providing equal opportunities and benefits to the least advantaged members of society.
• Civil Rights: Rawls’ first principle of justice guarantees equal basic liberties for each person. This principle has been used to argue for civil rights policies that aim to protect individuals from discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and other personal characteristics. Left liberals argue that these policies are necessary to ensure that all individuals have equal rights and liberties, as advocated by Rawls.
• Income Inequality and Wealth Redistribution: The Difference Principle has also been used to argue for policies aimed at reducing income inequality and redistributing wealth. Left liberals argue that a just society should take steps to reduce economic disparities and ensure that the least advantaged members of society benefit from economic growth. This could include policies such as progressive taxation, where the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate, and social welfare programs that provide assistance to those in need.
• Education: Left liberals have used Rawls’ theory to argue for equal access to quality education. They argue that education is a fundamental right and that a just society should ensure that all its members, particularly the least advantaged, have access to quality education. This aligns with Rawls’ belief in providing equal opportunities to all members of society.

In essence, Rawls’ theory of “Justice as Fairness” provides a philosophical foundation for left liberals to argue for policies that promote equality, fairness, and social justice. His principles have been used to advocate for a wide range of policies aimed at creating a more just and equitable society.

Hobbesian and Libertarian Reponses

Hobbesian absolutists and Lockean libertarians, each with their distinct philosophical underpinnings, offer contrasting responses to the ideas of John Rawls and left liberals.

Hobbesian Absolutists. Hobbesian absolutists, who advocate for a strong central authority, might critique the Rawlsian emphasis on equality and redistribution. They may argue that such policies could undermine the authority of the state and lead to instability. Hobbesian philosophy prioritizes order and security above all else, and Hobbesians might worry that policies aimed at reducing inequality could lead to social unrest or conflict.

A prime example of a government that aligns with Hobbesian absolutism is the Chinese government. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) maintains a strong central authority and prioritizes social stability and unity. The CCP might argue against Rawlsian policies like free speech, religion, or fair opportunity on the grounds that they could lead to social division or resentment. For instance, the Chinese government has often prioritized economic growth over respecting rights or income inequality, arguing that a strong economy benefits everyone in the long run. They might see civil rights as a potential threat to economic growth, as it could discourage investment and entrepreneurship. Moreover, the Chinese government might argue that it’s the state’s role to maintain social order and prevent conflict, and that policies aimed at reducing inequality could undermine this role by stirring up social unrest.

Another example of a Hobbesian absolutist might be Alexander Dugin, a Russian political scientist known for his “Fourth Political Theory“. Dugin’s theory rejects liberal democracy and advocates for a strong state authority. He might argue that Rawlsian policies could undermine the unity and stability of the state by promoting individual interests over collective ones.

Lockean Libertarians. Robert Nozick, following in the footsteps of Locke, offered a notable critique of John Rawls’ theory of justice. Rawls’ theory, known as “Justice as Fairness,” posits that a just society is one in which the distribution of goods maximizes the position of the least advantaged. Nozick, however, challenged this view with his own theory of justice, known as the “Entitlement Theory.”

Nozick’s critique of Rawls is rooted in his belief in individual rights and the “minimal state”. He argues that any redistribution of goods, as proposed by Rawls, would infringe upon individual rights, particularly property rights. Nozick’s Entitlement Theory posits that a distribution is just if it arises from a just situation through just steps. This means that if individuals acquire their holdings in a way that is just, any pattern of distribution that arises from this is also just, regardless of how unequal it may be.

Nozick’s critique of Rawls extends to the role of the state. He argues against the idea of a distributive state, which Rawls advocates for, and instead proposes a minimal state. This minimal state would only have the function of protecting individual rights, particularly property rights, and would not interfere in the distribution of goods. This is based on Nozick’s belief that any more extensive state will violate individuals’ rights not to be used for the benefit of others.

The political implications of Nozick’s view are profound. His critique of Rawls and his advocacy for a minimal state align him with libertarian political philosophy. This philosophy emphasizes individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. Nozick’s view implies a rejection of welfare state policies that aim to redistribute wealth to address social inequalities. It also implies a rejection of any form of taxation used for redistributive purposes, as this would infringe upon property rights. Furthermore, Nozick’s view has implications for the role of the state in economic affairs. He argues for a minimal state that does not interfere in the economy, which implies a laissez-faire approach to economic policy.

Distributive Justice

Social contract theory provides a helpful way of thinking about distributive justice, which concerns the equitable allocation of goods, resources, and benefits in society. The question central to distributive justice is: How should benefits and burdens be distributed among members of a society?

This question may sound simple, but it has generated vast and complex debates within the field of political philosophy. Different theorists and schools of thought offer varied responses, grounded in their own philosophical premises and values. These can range from advocating equal distribution of all goods to emphasizing the respect for individual property rights even at the expense of inequality.

Let’s look at how some major political theories answer the question of distributive justice:

Each of these theories grapples with the balance of liberty, equality, and community in its own way. Their visions of a just society differ significantly, offering diverse paths towards tackling the question of distributive justice. In studying them, we gain not only insight into their rich philosophical traditions, but also invaluable perspectives on contemporary policy debates.

Discussion Questions

• How does the conception of the “state of nature” differ among Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau? How do these differing views influence their theories of social contracts?
• Discuss the role of consent in the social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. How does each philosopher’s conception of consent contribute to their understanding of the legitimacy of a government or society’s authority?
• How does Rawls’ theory of the social contract, with its concept of the “original position” and “veil of ignorance,” challenge or extend the traditional social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau?
• Compare and contrast Hobbes’ advocacy for absolute monarchy and Rousseau’s emphasis on the “general will.” How do these differing views impact their ideas about the form and function of government?
• What implications does Locke’s “Lockean proviso” have for modern discussions of wealth and resource distribution? How might this principle influence contemporary debates on economic inequality and social justice?
• How does Rawls’ theory of “Justice as Fairness” respond to the criticisms of Hobbesian Absolutists who argue that policies promoting equality and redistribution may lead to social unrest and conflict? How might Rawlsians argue that such policies could, in fact, enhance social stability?
• In the view of Lockean Libertarians, particularly from the perspective of Nozick’s “Entitlement Theory”, how could the state ensure the protection of individual rights, including property rights, without infringing upon them through wealth redistribution policies? Are there potential compromises or alternative solutions that could be seen as consistent with the Libertarian view?
• In the current sociopolitical landscape, how might the principles of Rawls’ “Justice as Fairness”, Hobbesian Absolutism, and Lockean Libertarianism influence the policy-making process? Can you identify specific policies or movements that clearly embody the principles of one or more of these philosophical approaches?

Glossary