Summary
Highlights
Thomas Hobbes argued that a world without rules, a "state of nature," would be a chaotic and terrifying place, where "life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Rational individuals would seek to escape this by trading some freedoms for the security offered by civil society, forming a contract to avoid chaos.
Hobbes believed morality isn't innate but emerges when free, self-interested, rational individuals realize cooperating offers more benefits than not. Through explicit contracts, like trading avocados for mangoes, security and better living conditions are established, giving birth to morality. This view is known as contractarianism.
While some contracts are explicit agreements, many are implicit, such as the social contract citizens have with their government. Though never explicitly agreed upon, individuals benefit from services like safe roads and clean water, thus incurring obligations like paying taxes and following laws. Rights imply obligations; enjoying benefits means contributing to the system.
The Prisoner's Dilemma demonstrates the difficulties in achieving cooperation. Even when mutual silence would lead to a better outcome for both parties, the rational self-interested choice often leads to defection (betrayal), resulting in a worse collective outcome. This illustrates the importance of trust in maintaining agreements, as defection is more common among strangers than among those who know each other due to social costs.
For a contract to be valid, all parties must be free to enter into it, and the system created by the contract must leave them better off than they would be outside of it. This rules out oppressive systems like slavery. Contractarianism suggests morality isn't inherently real but is created and becomes binding through mutual agreement, allowing it to change as collective opinions and societal norms evolve.