The Theories Of Contractualism And Untractionalist Ethics By Thomas Hobbes

Two important varieties of rationalist ethics are contractualist and utilitarian ethics. The foundations of contractualist ethics can be found in Thomas Hobbes’ 17th century writings. Hobbes’ most essential arguments are built upon his distinct view of human nature. To Hobbes human beings are “machines in motion” (Hutchings) and are driven by the passion for life, and the fear of death. Hobbes suggests that human rationality is a tool to maximize what we desire and minimize what we fear. In arguing his view of ethics, Hobbes’ uses the example of what he calls the “state of nature”. The state of nature is an imagined early human existence in which there existed no state or authoritative power to control individuals. Hobbes argues that such

Based on this, rational beings would naturally enter into a covenant in which individuals would give up certain freedoms – the right to murder, steal and so on – in order to safe guard against such actions being taken against themselves. This covenant would vest power in an authority above individuals, and would be responsible for dolling out justice. Hobbes’ theory revolves around human’s being rational and self-interested beings. Notably, while a social contract theoretically protects the rights of all, this is not the importance. Each individual is interested only in protecting their own life and property. One of the main issues with contractualist ethics is that it relies on the consent of the governed. Such consent has been argued for in different methods by different philosophers. Some have suggested a very literal version of consent in which consent was a historical reality of early people, but this fails to explain how the theory applies to modern society, as contractual obligations are not

Utilitarianism is consequentialist ethical system that focuses on the results of actions, rather than the actions themselves. Utilitarian ethics, attributed to Jeremy Bentham, also argue that humans are naturally driven to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Therefore, in utilitarian ethics, just actions are those that maximize happiness, utility, and minimize unhappiness. Utilitarian ethics also argue that happiness must be maximized for the greatest number of people, rather than focusing on the individual pursuit of pleasure. Utilitarianisms strengths lie in its societal applications, allowing decision making bodies that benefit large groups, rather than looking purely individualistically. It also offers a stronger justification if one accepts the base principle that happiness is universally better than unhappiness. One of the main difficulties in applying utilitarian ethics is the challenge of quantifying happiness. It is impossible to empirically measure happiness. Utilitarianism also opens itself to hypotheticals that yield unpleasant results. Under pure utilitarianism, if it would increase the safety, and therefore happiness, of a society to torture or kill innocents suspected of a crime, it would follow that such action was ethically just. Subsequent utilitarians have offered more nuanced versions of the hedonic calculus and ideas of rule utilitarianism that look at overall moral rules