Ethics in Social Contract Structure

Perhaps, this post in the series of Social Contract analysis is the most important. Locke knew a lot about government, but the subject matter of society itself had not become studied until Emil Durkheim and the great anthropologists in the early part of the 20th Century, which culminated in the establishment of sociology as a scientific discipline. This post's content takes advantage of the knowledge accumulated under the rubric of sociology and social psychology.



The starting point of SC as an ethical theory is the understanding that the individual, i.e., the self, is a member of a particular society. His society recognizes his being at birth, when the attending nurse or doctor spanks and talks to the baby and secures the appropriate response from the infant. By means of this process, the baby is welcomed as another human being in the world; and a self (which sees himself as others see him as stated by G. H. Mead, sociologist) is created.



Making society pivotal to ethical issues and questions has certain implications:



1. Being moral implies measuring up to society's standards of conduct. Through the educative process, the child learns how to behave, that is, the self develops; the individual is socialized.



2. Society enters into a contractual relationship with each societal member. In primitive society, that relationship is symbolized in the rites of becoming an adult, e.g., at age 13, when the self becomes mature; and is so recognized by the elders. He has learned and performed in accordance with his training the behaviors appropriate to particular situations. In return for the continuance of proper performance, the individual is given respect by his society. In classical philosophy, this notion of respect is sometimes referred to as "the freedom to act": the societal member is given leeway to act in accord with his own purposes and by his own intentions. As a trained individual, he is not being forced to act as others in the community might want him to. He is his own self!



3. There is continual acknowledgement of the contractual relationship by the parties involved: self and society. Whenever the individual answers the question "Who are you?" he affirms his standing in this contractual bind. For the ascription of one's self-identity has social meaning and grants to the individual social status among his peers. Such claims as "I am a plumber," "I am a student," "I am retired" become claims in society as to certain rights and privileges, e.g., can hang out of a building a professional shingle. Note that the self is always developing, ever changing as he takes on new identities and loses others, which become but memories.

4. Through training, the self takes on moral worth. Society sets up behaviors and rules governing the roles one assumes. As long as the individual stays within the boundaries of acceptable behavior for the role, i.e., acts in accord with his training, he is doing the moral thing.
For example, a nurse whose patient says he wants to commit suicide, because the pain is so great, yet does not assist her patient is acting in accord with the ethical guidelines of her profession. That is to say, she is acting responsibily (e.g. by telling the attending doctor or her supervisor of the patient's express desire). She ought not in any way assist the patient to do what her profession tells her she must not. She cannot appeal to some "higher authority" as granting her special license to act contrary to her training; and regard herself morally on high ground.

5. Since society sets forth rules and regulations for right action, as a trained member of society acting in situ, the individual is not confronted with some moral dilemma he cannot handle, i.e., does not know what to do. The society and its appropriate representative decides how to handle particular situations the individual agent will confront. A lawyer, for example, knows how to defend his client and knows, in particular, not to try to bribe jury members in a trial.

Discussion

Various philosophers in ethics have taken a position that details the requirements for being moral while others have stressed the benefits from being moral. Immanuel Kant argued that one should always do his duty without regard to the consequences of an action. For him, the individual must act in such a way as to demonstrate a rational approach to ethical decision-making. The agent is to treat other human beings as he does himself: with respect; not trying to use any other person but trying to call out rationality from others. He acts from a sense of duty to do the right and honorable thing.

J. S. Mill, on the other hand, argues the Utilitarian position in ethics. For him, the consequences of an act have moral significance in that the agent can take great delight from his moral act. The doctor who heals some patient will find he is glad he entered the medical field. An educator will find pleasure when his class does well on a standard achievement test. That is to say, the individual engaged in actions that benefit himself and his society is economically and psychologically rewarded.

The Social Contract Structure captures both sides of the argument between duty theorists and consequential advocates. For, there is a promise by society that one's abiding by the rules of the social game will result in personal and social gain.

The structure includes elements that are not part of the debate, since we know that the self is ever developing. Concretely, the principle of self development means that the ascriptions of self are open to analysis and change as one's situation becomes altered; yet one's response remains within the bounds of rationality.

I have found personal value in meeting with a psychologist or a social worker regularly during times of change in my life. I review with the experienced professional my past that has gotten me to this point of contemplating the change and seek his counsel pertaining how to make the adjustment in light of my plans for the future. Nevertheless, a review process simply is part of contemplating change in behaviors, whether or not the individual attempts to benefit from the informed advice of some professional.

Occasionally, the social contract is "breached" in the sense that one party or the other fails to live up to its requirements. If society breaches, this would mean that the agent is no longer required to act responsibly--as in the cases of war, pestilence and annihilating physical disasters like a volcanic eruption or meteoric desolation. If the individual breaches, that would entail isolating the individual from society as in the cases of encarceration or being institutionalized.

Typical "check-off" events in one's life that can function in the review process of taking stock of self are: choosing a career, choosing a college, choosing a mate, confronting the mid-life crisis, job loss in persons above age 45, major changes in physical or mental health, bereavement; and entering retirement.

Analyzing ethical and moral issues by casting them into the structure of the social contract represents a radical departure in the field of ethics, for the starting point of analysis is distinctly different: the self in society represented as a contract with particular responsibilities of self and society that should be conducted during an individual's entire lifetime.