Philosophy Study
PHI 435 Ethics
Evaluator
Role: offers an assessment of the reading and points out potential problems with the
philosophy.
Your job is to evaluate the reading and the philosophy it presents. Focus on challenging the
philosophy and starting to look for strengths and weaknesses. Use the questions below to
help you formulate your ideas (you don’t need to answer all of the questions; just use them
as a catalyst for your ideas).
Questions to Consider
 Does the philosophy have sufficient depth and breadth, or does it leave out
something important?
 What is unique about this philosophy as opposed to other perspectives?
 What effects might this philosophy have, practically speaking?
 How do the philosophy’s goals match or differ from your own?
 What is your personal opinion of the philosophy?
 How has reading this chapter changed your thinking? What did you learn from it?
 What questions does the reading leave you with?
The following philosophy contains several important features that in my opinion have been
used by different communities for a very long time. First of all, it is interesting that while
excluding an authoritative figure who established certain moral codex, rules, and
regulations, one leaves the process of “discovering” rules and regulations for a group of
people relatively involving. Because those rules are not made or given by an authority (God
or government, etc.) society establishes such rules in a natural way, which should also be
mutually beneficial and agreed upon. In this manner, this philosophy encourages the
creation of different social groups with different morals and rules. This potentially occurs
because of the mutual aspect of this philosophy. As soon as someone does not agree on the
rules implemented, those people can be considered as outsiders or can gather around likeminded people to develop a “subculture”. In this manner, this philosophy in my opinion fails
to maintain global order, in a sense that the creation of many different cultures with their
rules and morals, as well as different subcultures, will, in the long run, affect the way people
communicate globally. This being said, the communities have the chance to choose their
development paths, and can potentially not have any (cultural) similarities with other
societies. This philosophy is unique however because of its real-life implementations.
Starting from different tribes, they were able to create their morals based on survival
instincts and environmental aspects. The cannibalistic tribes came to being cannibals
because of the geographical placements of their tribe, as well as the availability of
resources. This has not been commanded by a third party (a god or some sort of
government). Furthermore, social contracts are being used in modern societies as well.
Philosophy Study
PHI 435 Ethics
Cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology constantly use a function called smart
contracts. Those contracts are mutually agreed on rules, which in a sense ensure safe
transactions and many more. The essence of the smart contracts however encourages the
creation of different altcoins (sub-cultures) which use a slightly changed protocol and rules
and continue functioning. To some degree, this philosophy matches with what I think. I
believe that the natural development of certain rules can be highly beneficial, however, I
disagree with this philosophy in some cases because I also place importance on certain
common morality which is globally accepted and implemented by an authoritative figure. In
my opinion, social contracts can be implemented in different environments. Being a
business major, I would consider the use of this philosophy in the daily activities of a
business. The problem of many businesses in micro-management. In this case, the
employees lack the freedom and ability to perform certain tasks creatively. In this manner,
the ability to use social contracts in this business will ensure that the employees can take
more responsibility, and actually develop a sense of ownership and belonging to the
business. All things considered, reading this chapter was both challenging and enlightening. I
was able to question certain social norms that are actively practiced in different cultures,
and also understood that without a third party’s implementation, society is able to come to
mutually agreed rules and morals, which in economic terms can be named equilibrium. This
reading also left a major question on me, which is formulated below:
Assuming that the entire world has the ability to operate based on social contracts, how
would intercultural communications (known by today’s standards) change?
In what ways will economies benefit/hinder from the above-mentioned situation?