Explaining the Social
Contract
It’s late at night and you come across a red light. Clearly
there are no other cars in sight: yet you stop and wait for the green light.
Why? You obey the traffic laws, despite the fact you feel reasonable certain
you could run the light, because you are adhering to the Social Contract.
What is the Social
Contract?
The Social Contract is a mental construct which explains how
and why we interact with society the way we do. The Social Contract is a
fictitious document which we are all born into as a member of society. Although
it is not written down anywhere (per se), we learn what-is and what-is-not
acceptable behaviors in society. This concept weaves it way throughout this
course.
Written in ~350 B.C.E. (Before Christian Era), Plato’s
article, The Crito, is where we get
our first glimpse at the Social Contract (referred to as SC from now on). Plato
writes that his mentor and teacher Socrates tells Crito that he will abide by
the decision of the democratic city-state of Athens because it is his
obligation, as a member of society, to support the rules of the society. As you
recall from the reading, obeying the decision of the court means that Socrates
will drink the poisonous cup of hemlock. Socrates does this because throughout
his life he has benefitted from the security and structure of Athenian society.
He is bound by the SC.
Plato’s dislike of democracy is evident. From the
perspective of the student, Plato is (understandably) unable to comprehend why
adhering to a SC is more important to Socrates than his own life. We know from
reading Aristotle that the danger of
Democracy is that it can easily devolve into ‘mob rule.’ Madison writes in Fed. No 10 that it is the obligation of
the majority (the mob) to protect the rights of the minorities – thus
suggesting that the rule of law, and individual democratic rights, trump the
consensus of the mob in order to protect the Rights of members of our
Representative Republic. In other words, in the United States, the majority
does NOT get what it wants – that was never the intent of our system of
government. Each member is protected, in essence, by the SC.
In the assigned readings of the Signature Series we move
from The Crito to Locke’s Second
Treatise of Government. It is here that Locke spells out the concept of
“just power.” Locke’s Theory tells us that:
a.)
We live in a State of Nature with PERFECT
freedom. Since there is no government, and no policing authorities, we can
whatever we want to whomever we want,
b.)
However, because man is a social creature, we
want to live in a civilized society. Some might speculate that this is for
reasons of security, access to a larger DNA pool and, eventually, the
conveniences of a specialized economy,
c.)
As we move into society we agree to “cede” (give
up) some of our ‘perfect freedom’ to government so that government is able to
create and enforce the rules and laws of society. These rules and laws serve as
the necessary foundation of a society that if free of chaos and violence. In
other words, we give JUST power (justice) to our government so that it has
sufficient power and legitimate authority to protect us, discipline lawbreakers
and maintain order.
As you know, Founder Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd
President of the United States, relied heavily upon the ideas of Locke to
compose the Declaration of Independence.
If we view the D of I as the ideals that our society aspires to, then we can
view the U.S. Constitution as the vehicle which, ideally, helps us construct
and reach the ideal society. However, as Jefferson writes in the D of I,
government is comprised of men. Since the nature of man is fallible, therefore,
logically, government is inherently fallible and thus incapable of creating the
perfect society (See – Plato’s article, ‘The
Republic.’)
In the D of I, Jefferson writes one of the most powerful
sentences in human history…
“That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness.”
In this flowing ideal of languid liberty Jefferson tells us
several things:
a.
The role of government is to protect our rights.
(Which earlier in the document Jefferson tells us flow from “Nature’s God”),
b.
The government derives its JUST POWERS from the
consent of the governed.
a.
Specifically, that we the people, from whom the
authority of government flows (consent),
b.
And that government is allowed to use just power to rule the people (rather
than be unjust power),
c.
One can infer that it is through the voting
process that we each can manage how our individual just power is utilized by
government. For example, as a part of the SC, we each consent to allowing
government some of our just power in order to create the rules and laws which create a society
free from chaos.
c.
However, Jefferson warns that reader that
“whenever any Form of government becomes destructive of these ends” or begins
using Unjust power, it is the right, or “duty” of the citizens to alter or
abolish said government. Thus, as we read in Fed No 10 – it is the obligation
of the majority to protect the rights on the minorities by assuring that
government’s laws, and enforcement of these laws, is done is a just way.
d.
How do we know when government is acting justly?
According to Adler (Week 1 – Truth), the reality is, confusingly, we don’t!
However, if our safety and/or happiness are threatened, according to Jefferson,
it is a pretty good indication that government is not doing its job
properly…and we are compelled by the D of I, and the SC, and Fed No 10, to act.
Jefferson also tells us that we are willing to tolerate the unacceptable until
it becomes intolerable.
Noted Political Scientist Rawls
tell us that the SC is negotiated behind a “veil of ignorance.” Although
this reading is not a part of the course, you might want to understand Rawl’s
argument. We know that the SC is merely a social construct that is composed in
our collective consciousness. Rawls helps us understand how to better define
what the application of “just power” (or justice) is. Rawls writes that when
the SC was negotiated, the members of society did not know whether they would
be at the “top” or the “bottom” of society’s social structure. Because we are ignorant
of our position within society, we are going to negotiate a SC so that should
“I” wind-up at the bottom of the social structure, then I want a SC that
protects me – and those on the bottom. You might see the resemblance to Fed No
10 in Rawl’s argument.
We next catch a glimpse of the SC in the article from
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s (DPM) article ‘Defining Deviancy Down.’ In this article DPM tells us that as
society defines deviant behavior as acceptable, we will see more unacceptable
behavior(s) in society. And that as deviant behavior becomes more accepted,
members of society will act even more deviant – thus pushing the bar of what is
considered to be unacceptable behavior even lower. This cycle continues,
according to DPM, and people become less and less engaged in a society they
find to be course and deviant. This explains, in part, another article in our
course, ‘Bowling Alone’ by Robert
Putnam.
Finally, for this example, we see Dr. Martin Luther King
discuss the SC in his article, ‘Letter
from a Birmingham Jail.’ In this article King leans heavily upon Thomas
Jefferson and the SC to explain to critical clergymen in Birmingham, Alabama
why he and members of his organization have a duty to act against unjust
government. Essentially King uses the arguments of Jefferson, the foundation of
American governance, to buttress his actions. As we discussed above, Jefferson
writes that it is the duty of Americans to act against the unjust acts of
government: such dissent is the moral obligation of each American. If you
recall from Week 1, and our discussion on values, Thoreau writes of Civil
Disobedience and Emerson writes
of the necessity of dissent.
Think about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Contained in the First Amendment are five rights – the first being the Establishment
Clause and the concept of religious freedom. The next four rights contain the
Constitutional authority for Americans to act upon the Jefferson prescribed
duty to act against injustice: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom
of assembly and the freedom to redress (or criticize) government. As you can
surmise, dissent is perhaps the most important American value: certainly I
would argue it is among the top four (Justice, Equality and Liberty being the
other three).
In his letter, King writes,
“One may well ask:
"How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The
answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I
would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but
a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral
responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that
"an unjust law is no law at all."
King answers this question by posing another….which, like
Jefferson, is based upon Divine authority:
“Now, what is the difference
between the two? How does one determine
whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares
with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of
harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An
unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human
personality is unjust.”
As he makes his argument, based firmly in the spirit of
American governance, King uses a near-Kant-like argument of the moral
imperative – while relying heavily upon the intent by Madison in Fed No 10. He
writes,
“An unjust law is
a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to
obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the
same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow
and that it is willing to follow itself.”
As we would expect from a Baptist Minister, King then echoes
Christian theology by making a Biblical argument[1]
against the ‘White Moderate’ by writing,
“First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been
gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the
regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride
toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but
the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice;
who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive
peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with
you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct
action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for
another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who
constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than
absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much
more bewildering than outright rejection.
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and
order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in
this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of
social progress.”
As you can see, the Social Contract weaves it way throughout
this course. Understanding the SC helps us understand our role in American
governance and, based upon the writings of these great thinkers, the SC serves
as a guiding light as to what is expected of American citizens. When we engage
the assigned articles of this course at a sufficient intellectual depth, we
realize that the nature of our society is not the result of dishonest elected
officials: that the problems in our society are not the fault of Republicans or
Democrats. Rather, I argue, our society looks precisely like us: it is a mirror
of our own behavior. When we accept the unacceptable – we get more deviant or
unjust behaviors in society. The backbone of American governance does not
reside in Washington D.C. Rather; it resides in our bathroom mirrors.
Alder, M. (1997). Six Great Ideas . New York
City: Simon and Schuster .
Aristotle. (2009).
Book II. In W. Ross, Nicomachean Ethics (pp. 1 - 7). World Library Classics.
Aristotle. (350
B.C.E.). Nicomachean Ethics. Athens: unknown.
Bible - New
International Version. (1991). Grand
Rapids: Zondervan .
Emerson, R. W. (1841).
Self Reliance .
Jefferson, T. (1776,
July 4). Declaration of Independence. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA:
National Archives .
Kant, I. (1996). Critique
of Practical Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
King, M. L. (1963,
April 16). Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Locke, J. (2002). The
Second Treatise on Government.
Mineola: Dover Thrift Editions.
Madison, J. (2010).
Federalist Paper No. 10 . In J. Madison, A. Hamilton, & J. Jay, The
Federalist Papers. New York: Tribeca Books.
Madison, J. (1791). The
Constitution of the United States of America. Philadelphia: U.S. Archive.
Moynihan, D. P.
(1993). Defining Deviancy Down. The American Scholar , 17 - 30.
Nietzsche, F. (1886). Beyond
Good and Evil. New York: Dover Publications.
Plato. (1991
(translation) 2004, May 13). The Allegory of the Cave. Retrieved
October 5, 2012, from Lectures of Modern Intellectual History:
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html
Plato. (2002). The
Crito. New York: Simon and Schuester.
Plato. (2012, May 13).
The Republic. Retrieved October 5 , 2012, from Lecture of Modern
Intellectual History: http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling
Alone . New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rawls, J. (1971). The
Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University .
Sartre, J. P. (1948). Existentialism
is Humanism. London: Methuen .
Thoreau, H. D. (1980).
Civil Disobedience. New York: Signet Classics.
[1]
Revelation 3:15 – 17 …”15'I know your deeds, that you are neither cold
nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot
nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. 17'Because you say, "I am rich, and have become wealthy,
and have need of nothing," and you do not know that you are wretched and
miserable and poor and blind and naked,…”
