Social Contract & Kantian Ethics: A Philosophical Inquiry
Theories of Societal Origins: Contractualism
Modern philosophy grapples with socio-political questions alongside epistemological ones. The rise of the modern state and the foundations of capitalism following the decline of feudalism brought forth questions like: How are states and political organizations created? Why should we obey civil authority?
The classical perspective explains these with reference to nature. However, from the 17th century onward, a new philosophical perspective emerged, proposing that society and the state are human constructs created through agreements. Key figures in this movement are Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Their aim wasn’t to discuss the state’s origin, but to challenge the medieval theocratic view and legitimize specific political organizations. Each author proposes a different type of state, but all consider two forms: the state of nature (prior to society) and the civil state (after the social contract).
Hobbes (1588-1679)
Hobbes describes the natural state as one where all are free, unconstrained, and possess an aggressive nature, leading to constant war, uncertainty, and fear. This necessitates a state for protection. Civil society forms when individuals surrender freedom for security. The ruler ensures peaceful coexistence but isn’t subject to laws, making the state more effective. This legitimizes absolute monarchy.
Locke (1630-1704)
In Locke’s state of nature, individuals are free, possessing natural rights to life, liberty, and property. While not necessarily a state of war, it could become one if force is used to gain undue control. To prevent this, individuals form societies and leave the state of nature. Civil society ensures respect for these rights, but state power isn’t absolute; rulers are subject to the same laws. Locke anticipates the separation of powers, discussing legislative and executive branches.
Rousseau (1712-1778)
Rousseau’s state of nature portrays humans as good, living peaceful lives. The accumulation of goods and possessions leads to selfishness and fear, giving rise to a corrupt state. This state protects only those with possessions, creating inequalities. Returning to the state of nature is impractical. The solution is to improve the state, guided by the general will of the people. The social contract facilitates this change, and education is crucial for future generations.
Kantian Ethics
Moral knowledge is prescriptive, concerning what ought to be. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason examines theoretical reason, while Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and Critique of Practical Reason explore practical reason. Kant revolutionized practical reason, critiquing prior moral systems for three reasons:
- Material Ethics vs. Formal Ethics: Pre-Kantian ethics were material, identifying good with happiness. Kant proposed a formal ethics.
- Hypothetical vs. Categorical Imperatives: Previous ethics used hypothetical imperatives (e.g., “If you want happiness, then…”). Kant advocated for categorical imperatives, where duty isn’t conditional. He defines this as:
- Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
- Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.
- Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
- Heteronomy vs. Autonomy: Earlier systems were heteronomous, with external standards limiting freedom. Kant championed autonomous morality, where individuals rationally understand their moral duty.
Kant identifies three ways of acting in relation to obligation: acting against the norm, acting according to the norm for personal gain, and acting from duty. For example: killing (against), not killing for fear of jail (according to), not killing because it’s inherently wrong (from duty).