Jesse Rappaport
Course slides for Professor Rappaport
Social Contract Theory
Prisoner's Dilemma
Prisoner's Dilemma
Suppose you are offered $1000 to split with a random partner. You are each given two choices - "Cooperate" or "Defect"
(a) "Cooperate" - If you both cooperate, then you each get $500.
(b) "Defect" - If you both defect, then you each get $100.
(c) If you cooperate and your partner defects, you get $0 and your partner gets $1000, and vice versa.
Prisoner's Dilemma
| YOU / PARTNER |
COOPERATE | DEFECT |
|---|---|---|
| COOPERATE | 500 / 500 | 1000 / 0 |
| DEFECT | 0 / 1000 | 100 / 100 |
PAYOFF MATRIX
Prisoner's Dilemma
What should you do in this situation?
- Suppose you expect your "partner" to defect. Then, you should defect ($100 vs $0).
- But suppose you expect your partner to cooperate. Then, you should also defect ($1000 years vs. $500).
Prisoner's Dilemma
What should you do in this situation?
It is rational (in their own self-interest) for each player to defect, no matter what. Thus, we generally expect both players to defect, and to receive a payoff of $100.
But this is a worse outcome than if they had both cooperated! ($500)
Prisoner's Dilemma
The general problem
How is cooperation possible if it’s always in the interest of individuals to “free ride,” or cheat?
Prisoner's Dilemma
The general problem
General form of Prisoner's Dilemma:
(1) You Defect, Partner Cooperates
(2) Both Cooperate
(3) Both Defect
(4) You Cooperate, Partner Defects
Prisoner's Dilemma
Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma
What if you are able to play the game multiple times with the same partner?
Would your strategy change?
Prisoner's Dilemma
“Real Life” Cases
- If you don’t pay taxes, but everyone else does, then you will enjoy the benefits of social services without the cost.
- But if everyone follows this logic, and no one pays taxes, then there will be no social services.
Prisoner's Dilemma
“Real Life” Cases
- If you illegally download an album, but everyone else who wants it buys it, then you will enjoy the album without any of the cost.
- But if everyone illegally downloads the album, then the artist will gain no revenue and might not produce another album.
Prisoner's Dilemma
The general problem
It’s bad for all of us if we all free-ride, but it’s always good for each of us individually to free-ride.
How, then, is cooperation (society) possible??
The Social Contract
Suppose we made an agreement (signed a contract), promising that we would cooperate, and agreeing to accept certain penalties if we don’t cooperate.
Such a set of agreements (i.e., “laws”) would ensure that people generally cooperate by punishing defectors.
The Social Contract
Thus, we can think of society’s laws as a system of rules, and coercive methods of enforcement, that are justified insofar as they promote cooperation (in some respect), where a situation in which people generally cooperate is preferable to one in which people don’t.
The State of Nature
Hobbes asks: What would society be like if there were no laws, enforcement, penalties, etc.?
“…no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
The State of Nature
- There is equality of need
- There is scarcity of resources
- There is the essential equality of human power
- There is limited altruism
The result is “a constant state of war, of one with all”
The State of Nature
Hobbes thought the state of nature was bad.
Therefore, as a society, we agree to abide by the rules of the society, in order to reap the benefits of social cooperation.
We sign a “social contract.”
The Social Contract
Thus, we can think of morality as the set of rules that "make social living possible." We accept them because it is rational (i.e., in our interest) to accept them, on the condition that others accept them as well.
The "social contract" ensures that others will play by the rules as well.
It allows us to emerge from the state of nature and become rational members of society.
The Social Contract
“PROS” of the theory:
- It explains why it’s good to follow moral rules (it’s ultimately in our best interest)
- It explains which moral rules we must follow (those which, by enabling cooperation, ultimately benefit us)
- It explains when the normal rules can be broken (when someone breaks the social contract)
- It is not overly demanding
The Social Contract
“CONS” of the theory:
- Do we really make an agreement to “sign the social contract”? (Do we have a choice?) The theory seems to rely on a “historical fiction.”
- Since morality is ultimately justified by reciprocity, it seems that we do not have moral obligations to those who cannot benefit us!
- Are humans/animals really so selfish by nature?
How can social contract theorists defend against these problems?
Civil Disobedience
What does social contract theory say about civil disobedience?
- By breaking the law, protesters violate the social contract.
- However, if the group protesting is systematically disenfranchised by law, then society is not honoring the social contract for them.
- So, they have no obligation to follow it either.
Civil Disobedience
Any problems for this justification of civil disobedience?
- If a group is disenfranchised, does that mean that they can break the contract in any way whatsoever? (Theft is not typically a form of protest.)
- What about protesting on behalf of others? If I am not disenfranchised, then I have no right to break the contract, even if other people are.
Civil Disobedience
When does civil disobedience "cross the line"?
- Inconveniencing others
- Property damage
- Causing harm
- ???
Himma
The following considerations weigh in favor of finding that an act of CD in a legitimate democratic state is morally permissible. First, the act is committed openly by properly motivated persons willing to accept responsibility for the act. Second, the position is a plausible one in play among open-minded, reasonable persons in the relevant community. Third, persons commit- ting an act of CD are in possession of a thoughtful justification for both the position and the act. Fourth, the act does not result in significant damage to the interests of innocent third parties. Fifth, the act is reasonably calculated to stimulate and advance debate on the issue.
In contrast, the following considerations weigh in favor of finding that an act of CD against an otherwise legitimate state is morally wrong. First, the act is not properly motivated or committed openly by persons willing to accept responsibility. Second, the position is implausible and not in play among most thoughtful open-minded persons in the community. Third, the people who have committed an act of CD lack a thoughtful justification for the position or the act. Fourth, the act results in significant harm to innocent third parties. Fifth, the act is not reasonably calculated to stimulate or advance debate on the issue.
The fact is that there are times when the only way to effectively advance a movement is through the use of violence. Sometimes, this necessity is clearly in reaction to particular act of state violence, other times it is due to more general circumstances. Either way, justifiable acts of leftist/working class violence are n act of self-defense insofar as the very institutions of the capitalist state inherently constitute continuing physical and psychological violence against the great mass of its people.
“Once the State moves to consolidate its own power, peace has already been broken.”
- Che Guevara
Anarchist Violence
More concretely, violence can be understood as absolutely necessary during certain phases of popular struggle.
This occurs when:
1. Nonviolent options have been explored yet no ostensible victory has been reached.
In the face of exploitation and oppression, inaction is akin to no action, and hence is tacit acceptance and support of those evils. In addition, the continued implementation of proven ineffectual tactics in the face of these evils must be considered akin to inaction, in that ineffectual tactics translates into the same end result; continued exploitation and oppression of the poor and working class by the hands of the ruling class, bourgeoisie and their lackeys. Thus, it would follow that there may arise circumstances, after the exploration of peaceful options, where the only ethical course available to a movement, or individual, is of a violent kind.
2. Whenever State oppression becomes violent, to the point where the movement itself or large segments of the population or the premises on which the people subsist are threatened with liquidation
Civil Disobedience
4 - Social Contract Theory
By Jesse Rappaport
4 - Social Contract Theory
Prisoner's Dilemma, social contract theory
