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.
Not, really. It's rather a perversion of the natural state due to some limitation of some sort, be it religion or any other shackle that they bear, that limits their freedom. One could argue that the internet itself ruins their freedom to an extent.
Interestingly enough, in the natural state of things you can't have an avocado tree. Because the avocado lost its only naturally ocurring means of spreading its seeds ages ago and they only exist due to humans planting them. There is absolutely nothing natural about avocados at all, the only worse example would be the modern banana =p
Alright, I'm not going to get into a political fight on TH-cam (because TH-cam is a terrible place to get into political fights), but I will point out two things: 1) Obviously, that's NOT what BLM believes. While some folks who are BLM activists are police abolitionists, it's hardly all (almost certainly not even the majority), and that definitely has nothing to do with whether or not the constitution is legitimate. 2) You're misunderstanding the moral philosophy here, too. You're absolutely allowed to advocate a change to the social contract under contractarianism, and indeed, contractarianism says that the contract is invalid if certain people wind up worse off than they would be otherwise. If, for instance, a certain population is exposed to police harassment, particularly if police encounters are sometimes fatal, that population might have an argument that the social contract places them in a worse situation than the state of nature. Given this, I see no reason that any hypothetical BLM advocate would be particularly upset by contractarianism.
Even to add to this, you could argue that the contract entails the police upholding laws and ensuring the safety of citizens, and the police are breaking that contract by harassing and committing violence against certain segments of the population.
"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*)
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
ChillNyeTheBroGuy Exactly. See the Gilded age as to why that would be bad. Just because our government needs to drastically decrease its regulation on business doesn't mean we need to let them be absolutely free to do whatever they want.
No. Us other libertarians just aren't caught in the trap of thinking that regulation needs to come from the state and know instead that it can also come from the market. This especially goes for environmental issues.
***** Except that the market isn't capable of doing that unless there's a fear of reprisal from the state. We need to roll back on regulations that restrict the free market. The only restrictions and regulations we need are the ones that ensure the ethics of business are enforced. There are many needless and inefficient regulations but getting rid of them all together will make matters worse. We must maximize the freedom of the business while also ensuring the security of the economy and the environment from the avarice that is innate to humanity
ChillNyeTheBroGuy wrong. The market is fully capable of producing regulation, with fear of backlash from consumers. It has done so time and time again. There are literally thousands of examples of market standards and regulations in place right now. I'll repeat: not having regulation from the state doesn't mean no regulations.
Of course businesses can do bad things. The extreme libertarians don't claim that they can't. They claim that there's always consequences and thus a strong incentive for them _not_ to do bad things. A good analogy for what you said is someone saying "Do these statists really think that police will make it so people can't do bad things?" Of course not. Nobody thinks that. That would be ridiculous. - Anarcho-capitalist
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.
I was also a bit disappointed actually. No mentioning of Locke and Rousseau and the Political Philosophy resulting out of their contract-theory. Hopefully a future episode will cover this up
Rousseau wouldn't be born for another ~50 years when this theory was conceived. Plus his moral philosophy is more inline with Kant's than Hobbes'. Rousseau's General Will is not what people agree to, it is what is best for mankind which implies that it is absolute and ordained by God.
The main problem I see with Contractarianism is that it doesn't resemble a contract. You can't decline to participate. The thing about contracts is, they're voluntary. It's not just that you can choose the one you like best, but that choosing none of them is always an available option. Not so with the social contract. There's no way to opt out entirely. The failure to provide this option creates an incentive to become Hume's Clever Knave, someone who purports to abide by the contract but doesn't really. This would defection, but not just occasionally. Constant defection. And if that's the incentive, then the system has flaws. The real rewards go to the most deceptive of us.
Thank you for making this video! I actually think this is a reasonable and working moral theory: no God, everyone does as they are supposed to most of the time and follow what the society has agreed on. Also, this means that morality is directly connected to culture and society, this it totally is. In different countries and cultures, you have different perception on what is ’right’ and ‘wrong’, and who knows what aliens will think about our morality.
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.
One of the reasons we have so many rules is because people do a lot of bad things for profit. There are anti-monopoly laws for example that would insure you had other people undercutting the guy who wants to charge you $10K for a glass of water. The rules requiring airport searches have grown over the years as hijackers and terrorists have found different ways to transport explosives. Back in the days of the Mayflower there were "indentured servants" who contracted to servitude for a specific time period to pay their way across the Atlantic. But black slavery was about kidnapping and treating people like animals and implanting racial prejudice in both the master's and the slave's children.
jmiquelmb -- There's a difference between emotional short-term desires and rational long-term self-interest. Cocaine is great if you're only concerned with your short-term happiness, but it has a good chance of reducing your total happiness in the long-term. Lying and cheating when nobody is looking isn't rationally self-interested behavior, it's self-destructive. Eventually you will get caught and the social cost will be very high. Not to mention that it's in everyone's self-interest to live in a society that values honesty and integrity.
UserNameAnonymous There's plenty of situations where I could behave in a selfish way and not be punished. For example, I could never separate my garbage, and nobody would notice. Plenty of people don't do it. Yes, it's in everyone self interest that EVERYONE ELSE behaves correctly. Not oneself. There must be other reasons why people don't break the rules when it's possible to do it without repercussion.
UserNameAnonymous But there's plenty of people who do. Which can't be explained by purely self interest. Thus making the assumption simplistic or imcomplete
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
I think you sort of did, assuming that you're a citizen of x society, you're also a pedestrian, meaning you can be directly benefited from the speed limit.
I think there is nonsense here: 2:12 "sometimes you just really want a mango smothie and in the state of nature - where there are no rules - the only way for me to get a mango is to steal it." If there are no rules how can we talk about stealing? Here there is an implicit rule that says that when you harvest a fruit you are the owner and other people should not take it without your permission. Private property is not the state of nature, it is a social construct.
This is an interesting point and it was one of the things I caught too after re-watching that bit a couple times--is it stealing or just simply acquiring what you want?
@@samquezada8453 As I see it, contractualism is based on moral rules mutually agreed by the parties from a state of nature with no moral rules. The problem with considering that something is your private property unilaterally is that the rules you apply to establish what is your property may not be the same as the rules others apply. Maybe you consider that the tree is yours because you sowed the seed, but another group consider it their property because it is on the land they were born, then who's wrong and who's right. Contractualism says neither is right, they have first to agree on some rules.
All practical rights arise by agreement. For our mutual benefit we agree to respect and protect certain rights for each other. Rights are protected by rules prohibiting behavior that violates that right. For example, the right to property is protected by laws against theft. As Jefferson said, "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted". However, the agreement does not determine what is moral, but rather what is ethical. Rules are created by people who are already moral, that is, people seeking good for others as well as for themselves.
The text at 6:53 perfectly sums up why I have no patience with people who violate TH-cam terms or the standards that individual creators set for their channels and then complain about having their videos or comments removed
Escrow results in everyone getting best outcome in the prisoners dilemma, where a trusted intermediary enables you both to put "if"s in the contract regarding the behaviour of the other person, either with one central escrow or both parties having there own that have that come together to maintain the agreement. Expensive on lawyers, but profitable on everyone being productive instead of backstaby. Some online services make this very cheap yet effective.
Ethics might be the most interesting field of Philosophy - it is for sure the most consequencial one. I wish CC dedicated more episodes to it instead of finishing the topic next episode :(
This wasn't quite as balanced as the others. I detect a hint of bias. I noticed this when the argument about the impossibility of slavery came up. How can one prove that a slave is better or worse off than someone living in the condition of all against all? We can't make the argument that the denial of freedom that slavery entails is qualitatively sufficient, because contractarianism is founded upon the very idea that you might be better off giving some amount of freedom for some amount of security. Therefore we are left with deciding on the amounts: A slave gives up a very large amount of freedom for a very small amount of security. How can we decide this quantitative question about whether that's a fair contract? There's a similar problem with the idea that you can't legitimately be forced into a contract, but you can legitimately be born into one to which you never agreed. Well if that's the case (and the argument presented here is that it is), then it is the case that under contractarianism one cannot legitimately be forced into slavery, but they can legitimately be born into slavery.
I don't believe this is a problem at all. The answer lies in what you said. We can be legitimately be born into a contract. One cannot be legitimately forced into slavery. If one cannot be legitimately forced into slavery, then there is no contract. The next generation is not being born into a contract, if there was never a contract made and agreed upon by both parties. This is merely the slave being forced against their will from birth. (the system may set up the illusion of a contract, but on analysis this will be false) This is in contrast to people who are legitimately born into a contract. For example, using the one in the video- citizens in a country. It is legitimate because we are able to define the contract through direct/indirect democracy (we elect representatives who we feel represent our individual views (bc of campaign promises and parties and all that stuff), representatives are able to alter the contract we follow- therefore, /we/ are also the ones altering the contract) (not voting doesn't take away from the fact we /can/ vote). (the contract stops being legitimate when one party stops being able to define the contract) If I am incorrect, correct me- my first introduction to contractarianism was indeed just 20 minutes ago with this video. x') And this is the first comment I've read, kek.
Biscuit Seller according to given definitions people could still be born into slavery if parents would be thinking about killing their child (abortion for example) and somebody would offer them a lot of money for the child to become their slave. All parties would be better off this way. Parents wouldn't have to kill their child and would get money, somebody would get a slave and for the child living as a slave might be still better than not living at all. So the child could be born into slavery. Not saying i like it. Just that according to the given rules it might be possible.
@@KiwasiGames Yeah,but in order for contractarianism to work,the agreement has to serve both parties. In the example in the video,the two parties are the avocado havers and the mango havers. When it comes to slavery, wouldn't the agreement be between the "two" different people,aka the whites and blacks? Clearly in that case white people are benefiting much more,since they have both more freedoms and security. The other party to agree to the contract is black people,and if we take it as a given that the very first person to become a slave was forced into it,there never was a contract to begin with. Not sure if i misunderstood the arguement here though.
@@maryakrivopoulou3584 You are misunderstanding. In my example, the contract was between multiple slave owners who did not acknowledge the slaves as being capable of entering a contract. Can there be a contract between a farmer and his cows? Contractualism does a good job of describing how and why morality forms. But it does a terrible job of determining what morals should be. Its a historical framework for studying current and past morality, not a philosophical framework for determining future morality.
I was in class and my teacher played one of the old crash courses. I started to scream OH MY GOD IS JOHN GREEN. Since you are my favorite author, he agreed every week we would watch a crash course. I got so excited when i saw you because i just got done reading Finding Alaska. I watch TH-cam all the time and i didn't even know you had a TH-cam channel!
While perhaps a bit outside of the field of contractarianism, I think you kinda need to know about Hobbes concept of the Leviathan to understand his view of the Social Contract. I also highly recommend looking into Rousseau for an alternative view on the state of nature (Locke also provide an alternative, although not quite as different from Hobbes). Although both of these concepts are in the field of political philosophy then ethics, I think they add a bit of nuance to contractarianism.
I really like this series, I like the general outline of certain philosophies. I am wondering if you will go into detail episodes on certain major and minor Philosophers. Aristotle, Lao Tzu and Dogen would top my list.
The internet seems to disregard this whole implicit contract thing, what with insults and bad conduct. Are you meaning to say that the internet as it is, is immoral, if based in contractisim values? Also, great video! Thank you :)
That's a very interesting question. Maybe, aside from specific websites with "terms and policies" and other contracts you sign, internet is a no man's land. Well, there is some legislation about prohibiting child pornography and anything promoting genocide or war, sooo I would say it has moral but it is quite permissive
There is no *actual* social repercussion to insults and bad conduct on the internet ; Therefore, you're not bind (or in a better position) by (with) the contract (of politeness). Hence, people tend to break it.
Exactly, one thing that Hank did not mention was that the social contract proposed by Hobbes was used to justify our subjugation to the State. Basically Hobbe's contractarianism was a philosophical tool to justify the power of the State.
Well, you only get to that by adding one more thing to the theory. This video was just about the contract part. For the necessity of subjugation you also have to add Hobbes' theory that people are inherently immoral. Which is were the opposition to Rousseau comes in, and then we get into a whole different debate. These videos can only be so long.
+Gusty17 You do know that the state do not offer temporary safety right. Having good roads, clean water, police, hospitals, fire stations, power plants is not temporary safety, its a massive permanent safety compared to non of it that you have in the wild. I recently had a very serious case of double pneumonia, without that power of the state that not only provided the education for the doctors, research of effective medication as well as the manufacturing of the medication I might very well have been dead right now. Only thing that is left of it now is a cough. I think do you not understand what Benjamin Franklin mean here. He say that if you give up *essential* Liberty for *temporary* Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. An example of this is the snoopers charter that was past last week in the UK. That gives force the ISP's to store *ALL* of your internet history so police investigations is easier. However the liberty of privacy have been given away for the temporary safety of being able to find more terrorists. Also. Giving away essential Safety for total Liberty is as bad as giving away essential Liberty for temporary Safety.
ESSENTIAL liberty vs TEMPORARY safety. Inconsequential liberty for permanent safety, however? That is the very justification for police itself. No, you cannot drive whatever speed on the road you want to. It says 60, for a measured reason, and you will be inevitably pulled over against your will for the betterment of humanity's safety. The evidence for the law is tremendous, your unfettered liberty is a threat to everyone else's life and happiness, and you will be obligated to be respectful of everyone who is helping to build this society which gives you such luxury to even consider the option.
This literally covers everything in Season 7 of the walking dead. Contract for security (Rick feels it's better to live in peace with Negan, even though he's evil, under a contract with him... in a Utilitarian way for the greater good of his group), sharing a common pot (The Kingdom), and living in freedom to do what you want (post apocalypse without government) means someone is always going to be the biggest bully. Mind blown!
you can change laws, but you can't change them arbitrarily because the purpose of moral rules, according to Hobbes, is to escape the state of nature. Some moral rules will do that better than others. At a fundamental level, Hobbes' approach to morality gives us a way to judge the practices of our own culture as well as the practices of other cultures and individuals.
All you need to do is suppose that your counterpart is engaged in exactly the same process you're engaged in (you are both facing identical propositions) and then you can cross off both squares where you make different choices. At this point, not squealing clearly defeats a mutual rat-out. Without an implied symmetry breaking between you and your counterpart, there's no dilemma here at all.
There's a very popular movie about a contract called _The Hitcher_ (1986). Most people, including one of the participants in the film for most of its runtime, and the people who produced the vapid (2007) remake, didn't actually realize that it was all about a simple contract, though. Sort of the way people who think morality is innate or divine overlook how much is negotiated.
The problem with merging is that people are working on two entirely separate contracts. One contract is: merge as soon as you know that you need to (for courtesy), the second being: merge at the last possible point. The latter is more efficient (provided everyone buys into the contract of "every other car" aka "zippering") but the former is more courteous. The best merging I've seen is when the sign says "Stay in your lane until merge point" and then has another sign that says "take turns - merge here." Now everyone is on the same contract and nobody's feelings get hurt because others are working off a different contract.
The beginning is like Lovecraft: "Then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy."
I feel like John has talked about how the people using the shoulder to add a merge lane actually speed up the total amount of cars moving through a traffic jam.
If from within a contractarian system you behave as an Act Utilitarian (accepting the premise that the contractarian system is meant to improve things), I think it works. Hole punches welcome.
The second you mentioned that he had too much avocado.. I was thinking about guacamole and I couldn't agree more. You can never have too much guacamole man, never.
I like how you point out that self-interested people (selfish) want to work with each other. That's why I find the Spoon metaphor for Heaven and Hell in religion silly. It goes like. What if you sit at a table but can only eat the food with spoons, but the spoons are to long for you to eat from. They claim the people in heaven will feed each other, while the selfish in hell will be starving. I find it stupid because the people in hell will be the first to feed each other, its in their interest to do so.
The problem with this social contract, is that different nations have social contracts that contradict eachother. It also means that any given social contract can have a moral standard where members of the social contract can be aggressive and deny rights to those outside of the social contract, and even against competing social contracts, which is how you get war, exploitation of the 3rd world, and genocide. Even religion is a social contract independent of the state, hence the holocaust. That's not to say social contracts are wrong, but that the idea that social contracts can simply shift, is probably not the best, because when they do shift, It is usually due to mob mentality, mob rule, which is almost always cruel, and violent. Even within societies, there are tiers of social contracts, as there are different rules for men and women, different rules for the rich and poor, different rules for the employed and the homeless. Some of these are rules out of necessity, for instance, the abuse of a woman can potentially have greater consequences than the abuse of a man, and therefor should be punished more harshly, but other rules such as differences in social rules between say, those in the media and the average joe, (cough cough, wikileaks cough), are not born out of necessity by the nature of those classes. The idea that a social contract and social morals could change based on mob rule, could overturn those conventions that are born out of necessity, and that's a catastrophic problem, and it's one that western politics is actually facing right now, which is the entire reason I bring it up. I don't think that the way social norms are shifting is a good thing. I didn't like how they started shifting about 2-3 years ago, and I also don't like the way they're shifting now, beyond that they're shifting away from something I don't like into something else. We should get to a neutral ground and stop having social norms "shift", because that change is the problem, because it always labels someone else as a wrong, or a victim, or someone who can be made a victim freely. It's never good. Social contracts are the best that we've made, but still pretty terrible, much like democracy is the worst thing ever, but the best thing that we have.
I noticed around 2013-2014 that Walmart wasn't selling much supernatural young adult novels anymore and people seemed to be imposing more of a conservative standard on me than what I was raised with. :(
jeremy miller This raises a lot of questions, and none of them are the ones I think you intended. Walmart used to sell supernatural young adult novels? Walmart used to sell novels? Walmart used to have books? Also, as far back as I can remember, Walmart has always been really conservative.
If the new social contracts arent good ones then it's up to us, as rational people, to build better ones. But that relies upon our fellow humans being possessed of a similar level of rationality.
Firaro I totally agree, but that's really difficult to do when the current social contract is resulting in book burning and censorship or chilling effect on divergent thought.
therealquade Great Comment! I dont know why, but your comment made me think about the audience of this channel and the types of people who comment in TH-cam. Regardless.. I would like to hear how the social norms you talked about are shifting and whats bad about this.
It would appear that the USA is currently returning to a 'state of nature,' as ideological extremism forces changes on the majority. The increase in firearms ownership, for instance, suggests neighbours no longer adhere to mutually beneficial behaviour, and trust has eroded. The same conclusion can be reached for the rise of libertarianism and Randian thinking in economics.
How does increased gun ownership mean anything about trust with ones "neighbors"? That just indicates that people are following their basic right to self defense and protecting themselves from possible invasion from criminals? And nothing else you said makes any intuitive sense.
Regarding the idea that the system must make your life better than it would be out of it. Why do we see incidents throughout history of obvious contracts that oppress large groups of people, be it slavery, internment, and even genocide, yet the oppressed remain subjugated by the authority and refuse to return to the state of nature as a group. Is the human desire to submit to the Leviathan so strong that we are generally willing to wait out such atrocities with the hope they will eventually rectify themselves?
We can be free, we should just place limits on our freedom so that we can all get along without randomly stealing each other's smartphones because we feel like it. So you may be somewhat less free than in the state of nature (or in a do-whatever-you=want-nobody-cares environment of the sort found in many video games), but the freedom you have you are going to enjoy significantly more than it you have to watch your back every waking moment of your life (and try to sleep with one eye open at all times). The main issue with Hobbes, not really addressed here, is "Where do the rules come from>? A king? A dictator? Or do we get a say, after a fashion, in what those rules are? Hobbes, inspired and disgusted by revolution at home, clung to the notion that you need a King who wields personal power and can dispense justice as he will if you want to avoid chaos. And who chooses the King? Essentially the King chooses himself by being stronger than everyone else. Which returns to the "biggest bully" notion Hobbes was trying to argue against in the first place...
2:15 you can trade your avocados for mango smoothies, stealing is not the only option and that's a contract that doesn't have to be enforced by a state.
Wyatt Brown the argument is whether the state is a better arbiter or not. The state would be mandatory, a third party contract arbiter could also be used and not be mandatory. Then the argument would be well the private third party may not choose to enforce such a contract, but the same thing applies to the state.
You need state when you have a lot of people doing contracts (explicit or implicit) with each other. Like Hank said, the social cost of violating contract with someone you know (like the case with neighbors trading fruits) is big. Therefore your contract there is relatively save. But if millions of people doing contracts with millions of other people daily (e.g trade, using the street, not being mugged, etc), then those contracts are very risky, since if there are no law enforcement, the possibility of getting away with violating contracts is very big.
What do you mean? If there is no rules you have absolute freedom, maybe just not the kind you want. Also when you live in a society you are not totally free, but maybe being totally free is not what you actually want.
The Heartless Genius define free will. Is it limited by only biology or not? Just because I may want to flap my arms and fly I will not do so. Free will is never actually totally free.
He says you can't be forced into a contract at the end of the video, but isn't this a contradiction to what he said earlier about people being born in a region and having to follow that regions laws even if you didn't agree to them? Please help I'm really confused.
I mean, I think its obvious that society's morality is defined by a social contract. That is what a law is after all. However, I disagree with the notion that this contract determines what is right or wrong. Ultimately, I take a utilitarian view of morality. Right and wrong acts should be judged based on the positive and negative impacts they have on people and their quality of life.
They're compatible. A utilitarian could (and many do) support a social contract if it was the greatest good. All of these seem to be consequentialist anyway at heart.
The problem with utalitarianism is the greater good, an idea used to justify anything. Personally I am utilitarian myself, but I also think that causes and intetions are also very important. You would not call a mentally insane person evil or immoral, or execute them for commiting a murder? Would you call a child immoral for ripping the wings of fly, or doing something bad with good intetions?
Freedom is the un inescapable nature of reality, no matter how hard we try to control absolute freedom through government people can always and will always be able to do whatever they please. The only reality and thing that exists and can't be stopped is the nightmare you described as the state of nature
as to slavery, it is usually preferable to death, for example prisoners of war in the ancient world who would be taken as slaves. the contract offered to them is "you were our enemy and so we ought to kill you, but we will spare your life in exchange for service"
Connor O'Brien what about something like a 90s sitcom plot. "If i win you have to be my slave for a week" or possibly life depebding on the nature of the contract. indentured servitude? or consensual slavery?
The way you describe contractarianism, with the idea that "you can't force someone into a contract" 7:09, seems to suggest that government falls outside the theory. The idea that "contractors must be free" directly contradicts what you were saying about the speeding ticket.
I agree with contractarianism on everything except one point: Most places with the kind of absolute freedom described at the beginning of the episode are (or were) war-torn regions, and people in that situation are less likely to be rational than when they’re well off because they’re putting much more effort into survival than thinking; but almost all, if not all human societies today have some kind of moral system through the cultures they developed on their own, including societies born from aforementioned war-torn areas with people focused on survival over rationality. This suggests that people can, and usually do, develop moral and cultural systems with or without rational individuals, that morality just comes naturally to our species. How many irrational people do you know who have strong morals? To me, contractarianism should include the rational as well as the irrational
Ironically, it was the strong ones who coerced people to "sign" the contract. Kingdoms and Empires were built through force, war and slavery. You can argue that it was necessary for the benefit of it all, but that's what history tells us.
I'm always perplexed at the people who down vote these type of well thought out and produced videos. wished they were forced to give a reason. or maybe I should be glad that they aren't forced.
I very much like the concept of Contractarianism. especially the EXPLICIT and IMPLICIT agreement of a contract. I believe that EVERYONE needs to have the terms of Selective Service apply to them because everyone receives the benefits of citizenship. yet almost no one sees it that way. in the US, we've all signed the "social contract" by receiving LOADS of benefits from this nation, so everyone MUST BE obligated to protect it when the times comes. (Note: I'm career military, so defense of the nation and ALL of the peoples therein is something I feel strongly about. I'm not "passing judgment, I just feel that everyone should be willing to protect a place they call Home.)
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.
This is probably the best explanation of Hobbes I've run into.
It really, really, REALLY isn't. They left out so many important parts. It's more Rousseauian if anything.
discopete117 That could explain it.
Well, Hobbes made the good social contract theory, but Rousseau made a good critique of it, even if it was intended a better social contract theory,
No, this is incredibly vague and ambiguous, with no reference to Leviathan.
The youtube comments section is an example of the "natural state"
Joseph Schmitz I have some concerns....
Not, really. It's rather a perversion of the natural state due to some limitation of some sort, be it religion or any other shackle that they bear, that limits their freedom. One could argue that the internet itself ruins their freedom to an extent.
Except of course youtube commentators hide behind a veil of untouchable anonymity
you can be reported and banned. so no.
Your mom is a perversion of the natural state
As a hawaii islander I can say emphatically, yes, you can have too much avocado and mango lol
MoreAmerican Don't forget Baked Manapua
I'll never stop eating Manapua
Marcello Chua
Damn, that just made me hungry.
MoreAmerican
This baked Manapua kills fascists
Interestingly enough, in the natural state of things you can't have an avocado tree.
Because the avocado lost its only naturally ocurring means of spreading its seeds ages ago and they only exist due to humans planting them. There is absolutely nothing natural about avocados at all, the only worse example would be the modern banana =p
Seedless grapes?
I JUST CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF PHILOSOPHY!!!
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.
The Unknown Or Black Lives Matter, who want to abolish the police and say it's not their constitution because it was signed by all white men.
The Unknown you do know that's not what BLM wants, right.
Alright, I'm not going to get into a political fight on TH-cam (because TH-cam is a terrible place to get into political fights), but I will point out two things:
1) Obviously, that's NOT what BLM believes. While some folks who are BLM activists are police abolitionists, it's hardly all (almost certainly not even the majority), and that definitely has nothing to do with whether or not the constitution is legitimate.
2) You're misunderstanding the moral philosophy here, too. You're absolutely allowed to advocate a change to the social contract under contractarianism, and indeed, contractarianism says that the contract is invalid if certain people wind up worse off than they would be otherwise. If, for instance, a certain population is exposed to police harassment, particularly if police encounters are sometimes fatal, that population might have an argument that the social contract places them in a worse situation than the state of nature.
Given this, I see no reason that any hypothetical BLM advocate would be particularly upset by contractarianism.
Even to add to this, you could argue that the contract entails the police upholding laws and ensuring the safety of citizens, and the police are breaking that contract by harassing and committing violence against certain segments of the population.
+Steven Jobs Primivitist? worst on political scale
"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*)
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
ChillNyeTheBroGuy Exactly. See the Gilded age as to why that would be bad. Just because our government needs to drastically decrease its regulation on business doesn't mean we need to let them be absolutely free to do whatever they want.
No. Us other libertarians just aren't caught in the trap of thinking that regulation needs to come from the state and know instead that it can also come from the market. This especially goes for environmental issues.
***** Except that the market isn't capable of doing that unless there's a fear of reprisal from the state. We need to roll back on regulations that restrict the free market. The only restrictions and regulations we need are the ones that ensure the ethics of business are enforced. There are many needless and inefficient regulations but getting rid of them all together will make matters worse. We must maximize the freedom of the business while also ensuring the security of the economy and the environment from the avarice that is innate to humanity
ChillNyeTheBroGuy wrong. The market is fully capable of producing regulation, with fear of backlash from consumers. It has done so time and time again. There are literally thousands of examples of market standards and regulations in place right now.
I'll repeat: not having regulation from the state doesn't mean no regulations.
Of course businesses can do bad things. The extreme libertarians don't claim that they can't. They claim that there's always consequences and thus a strong incentive for them _not_ to do bad things. A good analogy for what you said is someone saying "Do these statists really think that police will make it so people can't do bad things?" Of course not. Nobody thinks that. That would be ridiculous. - Anarcho-capitalist
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.
I love Crash Course so much please never end ;;;;;
I'm surprised that no prominent mention of Rousseau was made.
Jason93609 my thoughts exactly
As soon as he mentioned Hobbes, Rousseau was the first thing that popped into my mind. Haha
I was also a bit disappointed actually. No mentioning of Locke and Rousseau and the Political Philosophy resulting out of their contract-theory. Hopefully a future episode will cover this up
Rousseau wouldn't be born for another ~50 years when this theory was conceived. Plus his moral philosophy is more inline with Kant's than Hobbes'. Rousseau's General Will is not what people agree to, it is what is best for mankind which implies that it is absolute and ordained by God.
Well not "ordained by God" but pre-existing.
OMG thats already Episode #37. Thats 37 weeks since i started following this. Crazy how time goes by.
The main problem I see with Contractarianism is that it doesn't resemble a contract. You can't decline to participate.
The thing about contracts is, they're voluntary. It's not just that you can choose the one you like best, but that choosing none of them is always an available option. Not so with the social contract. There's no way to opt out entirely.
The failure to provide this option creates an incentive to become Hume's Clever Knave, someone who purports to abide by the contract but doesn't really. This would defection, but not just occasionally. Constant defection.
And if that's the incentive, then the system has flaws. The real rewards go to the most deceptive of us.
Thank you for making this video! I actually think this is a reasonable and working moral theory: no God, everyone does as they are supposed to most of the time and follow what the society has agreed on. Also, this means that morality is directly connected to culture and society, this it totally is. In different countries and cultures, you have different perception on what is ’right’ and ‘wrong’, and who knows what aliens will think about our morality.
THIS IS IT!
I've been waiting for this since forever
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.
One of the reasons we have so many rules is because people do a lot of bad things for profit. There are anti-monopoly laws for example that would insure you had other people undercutting the guy who wants to charge you $10K for a glass of water. The rules requiring airport searches have grown over the years as hijackers and terrorists have found different ways to transport explosives. Back in the days of the Mayflower there were "indentured servants" who contracted to servitude for a specific time period to pay their way across the Atlantic. But black slavery was about kidnapping and treating people like animals and implanting racial prejudice in both the master's and the slave's children.
jmiquelmb -- There's a difference between emotional short-term desires and rational long-term self-interest. Cocaine is great if you're only concerned with your short-term happiness, but it has a good chance of reducing your total happiness in the long-term.
Lying and cheating when nobody is looking isn't rationally self-interested behavior, it's self-destructive. Eventually you will get caught and the social cost will be very high. Not to mention that it's in everyone's self-interest to live in a society that values honesty and integrity.
UserNameAnonymous There's plenty of situations where I could behave in a selfish way and not be punished. For example, I could never separate my garbage, and nobody would notice. Plenty of people don't do it.
Yes, it's in everyone self interest that EVERYONE ELSE behaves correctly. Not oneself. There must be other reasons why people don't break the rules when it's possible to do it without repercussion.
Sure, but the garbage is an example in which most people don't care even though they are supposedly not self-interested.
UserNameAnonymous But there's plenty of people who do. Which can't be explained by purely self interest. Thus making the assumption simplistic or imcomplete
...as im eating avocado toast
I sometimes wake up and think what's the point
HowtheHo 〰
Well, just be glad you had a chance to live.
Finding Jesus Christ is the point in my opinion
No one has found him yet? He might be dead by now. Better off finding Elvis to see if he is still alive.
Canadian Apistevist not cool
bob polo
What makes it not cool? It's only an observation they made.
hey, I'm writing an essay on this at the moment. perfect timing
is Contractarianism the same as Social Contract theory?
@@cee5053 yes
I love talking about ethics and morality
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
I think you sort of did, assuming that you're a citizen of x society, you're also a pedestrian, meaning you can be directly benefited from the speed limit.
This theory actually resonated with me a lot, and makes a lot of sense. I wonder if it can somehow work with moral relativism
I think there is nonsense here:
2:12 "sometimes you just really want a mango smothie and in the state of nature - where there are no rules - the only way for me to get a mango is to steal it."
If there are no rules how can we talk about stealing? Here there is an implicit rule that says that when you harvest a fruit you are the owner and other people should not take it without your permission.
Private property is not the state of nature, it is a social construct.
This is an interesting point and it was one of the things I caught too after re-watching that bit a couple times--is it stealing or just simply acquiring what you want?
@@samquezada8453 As I see it, contractualism is based on moral rules mutually agreed by the parties from a state of nature with no moral rules. The problem with considering that something is your private property unilaterally is that the rules you apply to establish what is your property may not be the same as the rules others apply. Maybe you consider that the tree is yours because you sowed the seed, but another group consider it their property because it is on the land they were born, then who's wrong and who's right. Contractualism says neither is right, they have first to agree on some rules.
All practical rights arise by agreement. For our mutual benefit we agree to respect and protect certain rights for each other. Rights are protected by rules prohibiting behavior that violates that right. For example, the right to property is protected by laws against theft. As Jefferson said, "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted". However, the agreement does not determine what is moral, but rather what is ethical. Rules are created by people who are already moral, that is, people seeking good for others as well as for themselves.
"Now we have security and a more interesting diet."
The text at 6:53 perfectly sums up why I have no patience with people who violate TH-cam terms or the standards that individual creators set for their channels and then complain about having their videos or comments removed
I love Hobbes... and for obvious reasons I find it hilarious to compare his philosophy of the social contract with Calvin's world view. 😁
I'm so glad ur talking about this. We deal with this on the debate team.
Well you just helped me pass the first semester with all your videos about the different ethical theories, thank you sir!
Once, far away, I had both a mango Tree and an Avocado one. i dont anymore. this flash philosophy hit me right in the feels
This is one of the series I enjoyed most on the channel so far
Escrow results in everyone getting best outcome in the prisoners dilemma, where a trusted intermediary enables you both to put "if"s in the contract regarding the behaviour of the other person, either with one central escrow or both parties having there own that have that come together to maintain the agreement. Expensive on lawyers, but profitable on everyone being productive instead of backstaby. Some online services make this very cheap yet effective.
Ethics might be the most interesting field of Philosophy - it is for sure the most consequencial one.
I wish CC dedicated more episodes to it instead of finishing the topic next episode :(
Love this series. Absolutely, definitely my favorite.
This wasn't quite as balanced as the others. I detect a hint of bias.
I noticed this when the argument about the impossibility of slavery came up. How can one prove that a slave is better or worse off than someone living in the condition of all against all?
We can't make the argument that the denial of freedom that slavery entails is qualitatively sufficient, because contractarianism is founded upon the very idea that you might be better off giving some amount of freedom for some amount of security. Therefore we are left with deciding on the amounts: A slave gives up a very large amount of freedom for a very small amount of security. How can we decide this quantitative question about whether that's a fair contract?
There's a similar problem with the idea that you can't legitimately be forced into a contract, but you can legitimately be born into one to which you never agreed. Well if that's the case (and the argument presented here is that it is), then it is the case that under contractarianism one cannot legitimately be forced into slavery, but they can legitimately be born into slavery.
I don't believe this is a problem at all. The answer lies in what you said. We can be legitimately be born into a contract. One cannot be legitimately forced into slavery.
If one cannot be legitimately forced into slavery, then there is no contract. The next generation is not being born into a contract, if there was never a contract made and agreed upon by both parties. This is merely the slave being forced against their will from birth.
(the system may set up the illusion of a contract, but on analysis this will be false)
This is in contrast to people who are legitimately born into a contract. For example, using the one in the video- citizens in a country. It is legitimate because we are able to define the contract through direct/indirect democracy (we elect representatives who we feel represent our individual views (bc of campaign promises and parties and all that stuff), representatives are able to alter the contract we follow- therefore, /we/ are also the ones altering the contract) (not voting doesn't take away from the fact we /can/ vote).
(the contract stops being legitimate when one party stops being able to define the contract)
If I am incorrect, correct me- my first introduction to contractarianism was indeed just 20 minutes ago with this video. x') And this is the first comment I've read, kek.
Biscuit Seller according to given definitions people could still be born into slavery if parents would be thinking about killing their child (abortion for example) and somebody would offer them a lot of money for the child to become their slave. All parties would be better off this way. Parents wouldn't have to kill their child and would get money, somebody would get a slave and for the child living as a slave might be still better than not living at all. So the child could be born into slavery. Not saying i like it. Just that according to the given rules it might be possible.
Just an example.
@@KiwasiGames Yeah,but in order for contractarianism to work,the agreement has to serve both parties. In the example in the video,the two parties are the avocado havers and the mango havers. When it comes to slavery, wouldn't the agreement be between the "two" different people,aka the whites and blacks? Clearly in that case white people are benefiting much more,since they have both more freedoms and security. The other party to agree to the contract is black people,and if we take it as a given that the very first person to become a slave was forced into it,there never was a contract to begin with. Not sure if i misunderstood the arguement here though.
@@maryakrivopoulou3584 You are misunderstanding. In my example, the contract was between multiple slave owners who did not acknowledge the slaves as being capable of entering a contract. Can there be a contract between a farmer and his cows?
Contractualism does a good job of describing how and why morality forms. But it does a terrible job of determining what morals should be. Its a historical framework for studying current and past morality, not a philosophical framework for determining future morality.
How you made this video without giving into the temptation of a single Calvin & Hobbes reference is beyond me.
No Calvin and Hobbes reference?!
Loving these uploads. Thanks for all the hard work!
I was in class and my teacher played one of the old crash courses. I started to scream OH MY GOD IS JOHN GREEN. Since you are my favorite author, he agreed every week we would watch a crash course. I got so excited when i saw you because i just got done reading Finding Alaska. I watch TH-cam all the time and i didn't even know you had a TH-cam channel!
While perhaps a bit outside of the field of contractarianism, I think you kinda need to know about Hobbes concept of the Leviathan to understand his view of the Social Contract. I also highly recommend looking into Rousseau for an alternative view on the state of nature (Locke also provide an alternative, although not quite as different from Hobbes). Although both of these concepts are in the field of political philosophy then ethics, I think they add a bit of nuance to contractarianism.
I really like this series, I like the general outline of certain philosophies. I am wondering if you will go into detail episodes on certain major and minor Philosophers. Aristotle, Lao Tzu and Dogen would top my list.
Thanks for this video. Please never stop producing this series!!
I wish I had more likes to give you guys. Keep up the good work!
Ok this is good, can't wait for the Virtue Ethics video! I was concerned about the potential oversight, but CrashCourse comes through once again!
The internet seems to disregard this whole implicit contract thing, what with insults and bad conduct. Are you meaning to say that the internet as it is, is immoral, if based in contractisim values?
Also, great video! Thank you :)
That's a very interesting question. Maybe, aside from specific websites with "terms and policies" and other contracts you sign, internet is a no man's land. Well, there is some legislation about prohibiting child pornography and anything promoting genocide or war, sooo I would say it has moral but it is quite permissive
There is no *actual* social repercussion to insults and bad conduct on the internet ; Therefore, you're not bind (or in a better position) by (with) the contract (of politeness). Hence, people tend to break it.
Aww, good point!
well said, just a note to that: people do not break it, since they never agreed to that in the first place
I ]argue that the internet is immoral, especially the youtube comments and any other message board that has no community guidelines.
Aw hell yeah, we are learning Hobbes in AP Euro. Thanks Hank, much love!!
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
Exactly, one thing that Hank did not mention was that the social contract proposed by Hobbes was used to justify our subjugation to the State. Basically Hobbe's contractarianism was a philosophical tool to justify the power of the State.
Well, you only get to that by adding one more thing to the theory. This video was just about the contract part. For the necessity of subjugation you also have to add Hobbes' theory that people are inherently immoral. Which is were the opposition to Rousseau comes in, and then we get into a whole different debate. These videos can only be so long.
+Gusty17 You do know that the state do not offer temporary safety right. Having good roads, clean water, police, hospitals, fire stations, power plants is not temporary safety, its a massive permanent safety compared to non of it that you have in the wild. I recently had a very serious case of double pneumonia, without that power of the state that not only provided the education for the doctors, research of effective medication as well as the manufacturing of the medication I might very well have been dead right now. Only thing that is left of it now is a cough.
I think do you not understand what Benjamin Franklin mean here. He say that if you give up *essential* Liberty for *temporary* Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. An example of this is the snoopers charter that was past last week in the UK. That gives force the ISP's to store *ALL* of your internet history so police investigations is easier. However the liberty of privacy have been given away for the temporary safety of being able to find more terrorists.
Also. Giving away essential Safety for total Liberty is as bad as giving away essential Liberty for temporary Safety.
Cool, now live a cave or somewhere with no human civilization. There you will have absolute freedom or liberty.
ESSENTIAL liberty vs TEMPORARY safety. Inconsequential liberty for permanent safety, however? That is the very justification for police itself. No, you cannot drive whatever speed on the road you want to. It says 60, for a measured reason, and you will be inevitably pulled over against your will for the betterment of humanity's safety. The evidence for the law is tremendous, your unfettered liberty is a threat to everyone else's life and happiness, and you will be obligated to be respectful of everyone who is helping to build this society which gives you such luxury to even consider the option.
This literally covers everything in Season 7 of the walking dead. Contract for security (Rick feels it's better to live in peace with Negan, even though he's evil, under a contract with him... in a Utilitarian way for the greater good of his group), sharing a common pot (The Kingdom), and living in freedom to do what you want (post apocalypse without government) means someone is always going to be the biggest bully.
Mind blown!
Please do an episode on Hans Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics.
you can change laws, but you can't change them arbitrarily because the purpose of moral rules, according to Hobbes, is to escape the state of nature. Some moral rules will do that better than others. At a fundamental level, Hobbes' approach to morality gives us a way to judge the practices of our own culture as well as the practices of other cultures and individuals.
Morality exists before the mangoes. I'm not trying to make older TH-cam comments.
All you need to do is suppose that your counterpart is engaged in exactly the same process you're engaged in (you are both facing identical propositions) and then you can cross off both squares where you make different choices. At this point, not squealing clearly defeats a mutual rat-out. Without an implied symmetry breaking between you and your counterpart, there's no dilemma here at all.
"Is there any such thing as too much guacamole"? Instant like.
There's a very popular movie about a contract called _The Hitcher_ (1986). Most people, including one of the participants in the film for most of its runtime, and the people who produced the vapid (2007) remake, didn't actually realize that it was all about a simple contract, though. Sort of the way people who think morality is innate or divine overlook how much is negotiated.
I like how they caption " sometimes you really want a mango smoothie"
how come i never found this channel before? its awesome!
Crashcourse: Can you make a video about Libertarianism?
Hiltyeah He isn't talking about liberals.
@fan9775 Evidently, he is speaking of Social Libertarianism.
Hiltyeah I highly doubt he meant the political party....
The problem with merging is that people are working on two entirely separate contracts. One contract is: merge as soon as you know that you need to (for courtesy), the second being: merge at the last possible point.
The latter is more efficient (provided everyone buys into the contract of "every other car" aka "zippering") but the former is more courteous.
The best merging I've seen is when the sign says "Stay in your lane until merge point" and then has another sign that says "take turns - merge here." Now everyone is on the same contract and nobody's feelings get hurt because others are working off a different contract.
The beginning is like Lovecraft: "Then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy."
It may be pertinent to note that in chapter 20 of Leviathan, Hobbes actually argues that one may agree to slavery (commonwealth by acquisition).
Contractarianism: gives birth to loopholearianism
Which gives rise to assholearianism.
end point? watchtheworldburnism
i can relate to being a contractarian :P
which gives rise to renegotiateyourcontractorenditandthinkbeforeyouaenteracontractism.
I recommend Michael Huemer's, "The Problem of Political Authority" which put a lot of (further) holes in Hobbe's theory of contracts.
"The key to saving the world... Was a contract."
Why does this sound familiar?
I feel like John has talked about how the people using the shoulder to add a merge lane actually speed up the total amount of cars moving through a traffic jam.
Does anybody knows if there is a mix of utilitarism and contractarianism?
Wyatt Brown well, yeah, but I was asking if there was a name for it specifically
Rule utilitarianism?
That would be rational egoism. Individuals maximize their own utility, specialized contracts show up where other people are concerned.
If from within a contractarian system you behave as an Act Utilitarian (accepting the premise that the contractarian system is meant to improve things), I think it works. Hole punches welcome.
Restryouis a mix of the two would be propertarianism
The second you mentioned that he had too much avocado.. I was thinking about guacamole and I couldn't agree more. You can never have too much guacamole man, never.
This is so important in USA today. Everyone is so in defection right now that theres no safety anymore. 🤦🏻♂️
OMG thank you! I 'll have an examination on political philosophy in three weeks time, so this comes in more than handy.
Obrigada pela legenda em português (br) amo vocês
I like how you point out that self-interested people (selfish) want to work with each other. That's why I find the Spoon metaphor for Heaven and Hell in religion silly. It goes like. What if you sit at a table but can only eat the food with spoons, but the spoons are to long for you to eat from. They claim the people in heaven will feed each other, while the selfish in hell will be starving. I find it stupid because the people in hell will be the first to feed each other, its in their interest to do so.
This video is quite good
I took a political philosophy class last year as part of my degree and learned this stuff, I feel smart!
The problem with this social contract, is that different nations have social contracts that contradict eachother. It also means that any given social contract can have a moral standard where members of the social contract can be aggressive and deny rights to those outside of the social contract, and even against competing social contracts, which is how you get war, exploitation of the 3rd world, and genocide. Even religion is a social contract independent of the state, hence the holocaust.
That's not to say social contracts are wrong, but that the idea that social contracts can simply shift, is probably not the best, because when they do shift, It is usually due to mob mentality, mob rule, which is almost always cruel, and violent.
Even within societies, there are tiers of social contracts, as there are different rules for men and women, different rules for the rich and poor, different rules for the employed and the homeless. Some of these are rules out of necessity, for instance, the abuse of a woman can potentially have greater consequences than the abuse of a man, and therefor should be punished more harshly, but other rules such as differences in social rules between say, those in the media and the average joe, (cough cough, wikileaks cough), are not born out of necessity by the nature of those classes. The idea that a social contract and social morals could change based on mob rule, could overturn those conventions that are born out of necessity, and that's a catastrophic problem, and it's one that western politics is actually facing right now, which is the entire reason I bring it up.
I don't think that the way social norms are shifting is a good thing. I didn't like how they started shifting about 2-3 years ago, and I also don't like the way they're shifting now, beyond that they're shifting away from something I don't like into something else. We should get to a neutral ground and stop having social norms "shift", because that change is the problem, because it always labels someone else as a wrong, or a victim, or someone who can be made a victim freely. It's never good.
Social contracts are the best that we've made, but still pretty terrible, much like democracy is the worst thing ever, but the best thing that we have.
I noticed around 2013-2014 that Walmart wasn't selling much supernatural young adult novels anymore and people seemed to be imposing more of a conservative standard on me than what I was raised with. :(
jeremy miller This raises a lot of questions, and none of them are the ones I think you intended.
Walmart used to sell supernatural young adult novels?
Walmart used to sell novels?
Walmart used to have books?
Also, as far back as I can remember, Walmart has always been really conservative.
If the new social contracts arent good ones then it's up to us, as rational people, to build better ones. But that relies upon our fellow humans being possessed of a similar level of rationality.
Firaro I totally agree, but that's really difficult to do when the current social contract is resulting in book burning and censorship or chilling effect on divergent thought.
therealquade Great Comment! I dont know why, but your comment made me think about the audience of this channel and the types of people who comment in TH-cam.
Regardless.. I would like to hear how the social norms you talked about are shifting and whats bad about this.
this one resonates with me the most so far, i think!
It would appear that the USA is currently returning to a 'state of nature,' as ideological extremism forces changes on the majority. The increase in firearms ownership, for instance, suggests neighbours no longer adhere to mutually beneficial behaviour, and trust has eroded. The same conclusion can be reached for the rise of libertarianism and Randian thinking in economics.
How does increased gun ownership mean anything about trust with ones "neighbors"? That just indicates that people are following their basic right to self defense and protecting themselves from possible invasion from criminals? And nothing else you said makes any intuitive sense.
Regarding the idea that the system must make your life better than it would be out of it. Why do we see incidents throughout history of obvious contracts that oppress large groups of people, be it slavery, internment, and even genocide, yet the oppressed remain subjugated by the authority and refuse to return to the state of nature as a group. Is the human desire to submit to the Leviathan so strong that we are generally willing to wait out such atrocities with the hope they will eventually rectify themselves?
Can these come up faster, my ethics final is coming up soon :V
good luck on that m8
We watch these in university all the time, so helpful!!
There is such a thing as too much guacamole....for those of us who are allergic to avocado.
An excellent lesson on some political philosophy
So our freedom tells us to not be free
We can be free, we should just place limits on our freedom so that we can all get along without randomly stealing each other's smartphones because we feel like it. So you may be somewhat less free than in the state of nature (or in a do-whatever-you=want-nobody-cares environment of the sort found in many video games), but the freedom you have you are going to enjoy significantly more than it you have to watch your back every waking moment of your life (and try to sleep with one eye open at all times).
The main issue with Hobbes, not really addressed here, is "Where do the rules come from>? A king? A dictator? Or do we get a say, after a fashion, in what those rules are? Hobbes, inspired and disgusted by revolution at home, clung to the notion that you need a King who wields personal power and can dispense justice as he will if you want to avoid chaos. And who chooses the King? Essentially the King chooses himself by being stronger than everyone else. Which returns to the "biggest bully" notion Hobbes was trying to argue against in the first place...
Can you do one on Stoicism?
These are so good.
2:15 you can trade your avocados for mango smoothies, stealing is not the only option and that's a contract that doesn't have to be enforced by a state.
Exactly!
Wyatt Brown but this too could be purchased from a third party that isn't the state. It's the same concept.
Wyatt Brown the argument is whether the state is a better arbiter or not. The state would be mandatory, a third party contract arbiter could also be used and not be mandatory. Then the argument would be well the private third party may not choose to enforce such a contract, but the same thing applies to the state.
Wyatt Brown not arguing against contractarianism as a whole but that one little argument i cited.
You need state when you have a lot of people doing contracts (explicit or implicit) with each other.
Like Hank said, the social cost of violating contract with someone you know (like the case with neighbors trading fruits) is big. Therefore your contract there is relatively save.
But if millions of people doing contracts with millions of other people daily (e.g trade, using the street, not being mugged, etc), then those contracts are very risky, since if there are no law enforcement, the possibility of getting away with violating contracts is very big.
The use of 'Brutish' really makes that Hobbes quote. I wonder if it would be remembered at all without it.
An abundance of freedom...
huh...
Wait a minute...
But we're not free!!!
Crash Course are we free or not?!?
What do you mean? If there is no rules you have absolute freedom, maybe just not the kind you want. Also when you live in a society you are not totally free, but maybe being totally free is not what you actually want.
I meant like free as in free will. I was joking.
The Heartless Genius define free will. Is it limited by only biology or not? Just because I may want to flap my arms and fly I will not do so. Free will is never actually totally free.
i supose you live under a government, therefore you are not free, you have liberties
The Heartless Genius total freedom=anarchy. how do people not know about externalities ?
Sounds a lot like Objectivism... Some clear differences, but similar. Great Video!
I think the main difference is Objectivists, like most libertarians, don't believe in implicit contracts.
He says you can't be forced into a contract at the end of the video, but isn't this a contradiction to what he said earlier about people being born in a region and having to follow that regions laws even if you didn't agree to them? Please help I'm really confused.
Keep in mind that he is neutral. He brings up a question, and presents arguments for both sides
I took my politics class not realising that it would be surprisingly philosophical. I like it
I mean, I think its obvious that society's morality is defined by a social contract. That is what a law is after all.
However, I disagree with the notion that this contract determines what is right or wrong. Ultimately, I take a utilitarian view of morality. Right and wrong acts should be judged based on the positive and negative impacts they have on people and their quality of life.
There is no such thing as a social contract. You can't be forced into a contract if it is to be legitimate.
They're compatible. A utilitarian could (and many do) support a social contract if it was the greatest good. All of these seem to be consequentialist anyway at heart.
The problem with utalitarianism is the greater good, an idea used to justify anything. Personally I am utilitarian myself, but I also think that causes and intetions are also very important.
You would not call a mentally insane person evil or immoral, or execute them for commiting a murder? Would you call a child immoral for ripping the wings of fly, or doing something bad with good intetions?
***** So, you don't believe you could be punished for murdering someone because you didn't willfully sign an contract agreeing not to murder?
Jonas Strzyz You don't have to be an evil person to commit evil acts.
Freedom is the un inescapable nature of reality, no matter how hard we try to control absolute freedom through government people can always and will always be able to do whatever they please. The only reality and thing that exists and can't be stopped is the nightmare you described as the state of nature
as to slavery, it is usually preferable to death, for example prisoners of war in the ancient world who would be taken as slaves. the contract offered to them is "you were our enemy and so we ought to kill you, but we will spare your life in exchange for service"
But you are not offering a contract. You are coercing the person to "sign" the contract. It's like a robbery instead of trade.
Rick Apocalypse
I believe this is what is known as a Morton's Fork?
Connor O'Brien what about something like a 90s sitcom plot. "If i win you have to be my slave for a week" or possibly life depebding on the nature of the contract. indentured servitude? or consensual slavery?
Exactly, the person can't opt out whenever they please.
All and any contract is a form of coercion. If not, it's just charity.
The way you describe contractarianism, with the idea that "you can't force someone into a contract" 7:09, seems to suggest that government falls outside the theory. The idea that "contractors must be free" directly contradicts what you were saying about the speeding ticket.
Billy Te They choose to drive on that road, in that country with those laws
An Caps galore
Represent.
I agree with contractarianism on everything except one point: Most places with the kind of absolute freedom described at the beginning of the episode are (or were) war-torn regions, and people in that situation are less likely to be rational than when they’re well off because they’re putting much more effort into survival than thinking; but almost all, if not all human societies today have some kind of moral system through the cultures they developed on their own, including societies born from aforementioned war-torn areas with people focused on survival over rationality. This suggests that people can, and usually do, develop moral and cultural systems with or without rational individuals, that morality just comes naturally to our species. How many irrational people do you know who have strong morals? To me, contractarianism should include the rational as well as the irrational
How would BDSM fit into this theory? If two do kinky things to each other in consent, but the state calls it bodily injury?
Ironically, it was the strong ones who coerced people to "sign" the contract. Kingdoms and Empires were built through force, war and slavery. You can argue that it was necessary for the benefit of it all, but that's what history tells us.
Please talk about humanism 😬
I'm always perplexed at the people who down vote these type of well thought out and produced videos. wished they were forced to give a reason. or maybe I should be glad that they aren't forced.
Not even one mention of Chom Choms in the episode. 0/10
cult of personality on full display
BUT MUH PROPHET FOAM CHOMPSTER!
munch munch
I very much like the concept of Contractarianism. especially the EXPLICIT and IMPLICIT agreement of a contract. I believe that EVERYONE needs to have the terms of Selective Service apply to them because everyone receives the benefits of citizenship. yet almost no one sees it that way. in the US, we've all signed the "social contract" by receiving LOADS of benefits from this nation, so everyone MUST BE obligated to protect it when the times comes. (Note: I'm career military, so defense of the nation and ALL of the peoples therein is something I feel strongly about. I'm not "passing judgment, I just feel that everyone should be willing to protect a place they call Home.)