Ethics based on Natural Rights
General Comments
We are dealing with the question “How can we justify our ethical principles? Our
standards of morality? Our values?
We have seen that we cannot simply rely on our feelings, or the law, or religion,
or what society accepts as ethical, or on science.
The main approach taken by philosophers has been to provide arguments
based on a notion of “truth”. If we can discover timeless truths, then we should
be able to derive ethical principles from that truth.
During the middle ages the church dominated intellectual and social life.
Morality was justified by claiming that rules came from the truth of a higher
authority – God. As the Greeks came to be rediscovered, Plato and Aristotle
were also considered the authorities in many matters of importance, such as the
nature of the world and how we obtain knowledge of it.
In the 16th and 17th centuries several developments made it clear that the
institution of the church and its view of nature was no longer adequate for
guiding people in how to live. Science became increasingly important as a way
of knowing. Social changes were brought about by the discoveries of other
lands and subsequent increase in trade. The population gradually became more
urban and the feudal system was disappearing. With social change new
problems of living arise and new forms of human relationships. This leads to a
questioning of traditional moral values and the basis for their authority. It was a
time of growing liberalism and individualism. Traditional authorities such as the
Church and Greeks were being questioned. The morals of the Church, its view
of human nature and our place in the world, were too inflexible and did not meet
the new demands that came with changing human relationships.
All three of the philosophers we consider here – Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau
– were impressed with science as a way of discovering truth and tried to use the
methods of science to discover universal moral principles. We must emphasize
that they shared with the Church that the goal was to discover universal moral
principles, but the methods by which we come to know them were to differ.
Truth was still to be found, but the basis for moral authority changes from
coming from a higher authority like God to a basis in the methods of science.
Now it was science that could lead us to the truth.
Hobbes and Locke especially were very impressed with science. Looking at the
advances in astronomy that were based on geometry and deduction, they
believed that certain undisputable truths could be discovered about ethics
based on principles deduced from postulates about human nature. In other
words, if we could define human nature, then universal ethical principles would
follow. Rousseau agreed with this basic approach of using logic and deducing
principles. However, he was more impressed with science as having a negative
effect on morals.
All of them - Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau - believed that the best way to
discover human nature was to try to characterize what humans would be like
independently of social life. Therefore they attempted to characterize man in a
“state of nature” – that is, without social influence.
They differed in their conclusions about what such a state would have been like.
Hobbes believed that although we had no possible historical evidence that he
could deduce what human life must have been like prior to society. He
characterized life as being warlike, everyone out for himself, amoral. Restraint
in our behavior towards others was pragmatic – agreements between
individuals was smart simply to avoid being killed by the other. However, no real
trust was possible. For this reason, for our own long-term survival, we form a
social contract, give up our individual rights to take anything we want, and put
ourselves in the hands of a sovereign (ruler) whose overall function is to protect
the good of the whole.
Locke felt that we could, at least imagine, what life was like prior to society. He
also believed it was a war-like situation, but that we were aware of divine law,
God’s morality, even in a state of nature. This was available to us if we used our
reason, which was given to us by God.
Rousseau also believed that we existed in a pure state of nature, but that it was
ideal. He said that we had been corrupted by modern science and art.
Deception and false manners, mediocre art, were characteristic of “civilized”
societies.
Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679)
Hobbes lived at the same time as Galileo, and he was deeply impressed with
the precision and certainty of science. He was impressed by Copernicus, not
only for his questioning of the traditional view of the sun and the earth, but for
the method he employed - the observation of moving bodies and the
mathematical calculation of the motion of bodies in space. Galileo had further
sought to give astronomy the precision of geometry.
These people believed that the world was logical, and that if we
use deductive logic – starting with axioms or postulates and then
deriving logical consequences, that we are actually making
discoveries about the world. Therefore, if anyone uses the
appropriate method, it is possible to have real knowledge of
things as they are. In this way we can have direct access to the
truth, and we do not have to go back to ancient authorities like
Plato or Aristotle for an understanding of the world..
Hobbes therefore believed that ethical principles could be derived
empirically just like we derive an understanding of the motions of planets
and stars. This was to be done by the use of logic.
Morality and Political Life
Hobbes believed that we could consider humans to be just like objects moving
in space, and by using deductive logic we could describe human nature and the
nature of the state.
To discover human nature and the nature of society Hobbes believed that we
had to first consider what human nature was like independent of society. One
possible way of doing this would be to conduct an historical analysis using
information about how humans lived prior to society. However, he admitted that
we did not have any information about what life was like prior to society. This
really didn’t matter though, because we could deduce what human nature in its
“pure” form was like by using logic and analysis. From axiomlike premises he
deduces all the consequences or conclusions of his political theory, and most of
these premises cluster around his conception of human nature.
So what is “human nature”?
The State of Nature – men as they appear before there is any state or society.
All men are equal in that they have the “right” to whatever they consider
necessary for their survival. “Equality” here does not mean something moral,
but means that anyone is capable of hurting his neighbor and taking what he
judges he needs for his own protection. There are no “rights”, there is simply the
freedom “to do what he would, and against whom he thought fit, and to
possess, use and enjoy all that he would, or could get.
The will to survive is the driving force for man, and the pervading psychological
mood is fear – fear of death and particularly violent death. Hobbes presents a
picture of men moving against each other like physical bodies in motion – they
are motivated by appetite and aversion (or love and hate, or good and evil). We
are attracted to that which we like and which will help us survive, and hate
whatever we think is a threat. We are fundamentally egotistical in that we are
concerned chiefly about our own survival and identify goodness with our own
appetites.
So why would we create an ordered and peaceful society?
Natural Laws
Even in this anarchic situation there are “natural laws” which men know
because they follow logically from our principle concern with our own safety. A
natural law is a general rule, discovered by reason, telling what to do and what
not to do.
1. The first law is “every man ought to seek peace and follow it.” In other
words, I conclude that I have a better chance of survival if I make peace.
2. The second law says that a man is disposed to give up some freedoms if
others do too. This leads to the creation of the Leviathan, or “artificial
man” (the commonwealth or state).
The Social Contract
A “contract” between individuals, established by mutual agreement, to give up
their right to govern themselves and authorize a person or group of persons to
govern. This governing body or “sovereign” expresses the collective will of the
people. In agreeing to live in society, each individual gives up their power of
individual will for the collective will. A sovereign, since he represents the
collective will, has complete right and power to govern and is not subject to the
will of the individual citizens.
This of course is a totalitarian scheme and would certainly seem hard to
justify for ourselves, being used to more democratic kinds of freedoms.
Hobbes though is trying to deal with the age-old problem of how to deal
with the conflictive interests of the citizens in a society, and how to avoid
civil war. If we all make a contract, a binding agreement, and abide by it,
then we can have social order and progress for the whole of society, In this
way we give up the anarchy that characterizes the state of nature, men
living outside of community. The only way out of anarchy is to create a
single will.
Technically this is not tied to any particular form of government. May even
be a form of democracy, though not exactly like contemporary ones.
Resistance to sovereignty is not permitted because the sovereign actually
embodies the will of the people. Therefore to resist would be resisting oneself,
and to resist would be to revert to independent judgment, which is to revert to
the state of nature of anarchy. The power of the sovereign must therefore be
absolute in order to secure the conditions of order, peace, and law.
Ethics and Morality
We saw that in the state of nature there is nothing we would call “morality.”
Humans would be living in a state of “survival of the fittest” and any kind of rules
adopted would be temporary agreements to stay out of each other’s way.
Morality and justice are created when we form the social contract and agree to
be bound by the rules of a sovereign. Only if there is a sovereign is there law,
and in fact morality. Morality is the same as the law. And there can be no unjust
law, since the law is the will of the people.
If morality arises only with the social contract, there is no concept of
justice and morality that exists prior to, or above the sovereign, that limit
the powers of the sovereign. In other words, the sovereign is not subject
to any higher authority and the sovereign does by definition what is “just.”
So what is “just” is defined by the decisions of the sovereign.
So to be moral, one has to follow the law and abide by decisions of the
sovereign.
However, there can be bad laws. A bad law is one that does not protect the
safety of the people, because that was the purpose of putting our confidence in
the sovereign in the first place. The sovereign is the sole judge of what is good
for the people. If it weren’t so, anarchy would ensue. If the sovereign does
something bad, it is a matter between him and God.
Comment:
The "contract" theory of social organization may be worthless as fact (there is
no historical support for such a claim, nor for the idea that a “state of nature”
existed prior to society), but it did reflect the developing idea that the state
existed to satisfy human needs and that it could be controlled by human volition
and intention. As such it is a critique of Aristotle's idea that the state existed as
a product of nature, independent of human intentions and beyond human
choice.
In the contract theory humans bring the state into existence by their decisions.
A political individualism.
Although this sounds far-fetched to us living in this democratic society today,
very similar arguments in the recent past have been given to justify the rise to
power of dictators. Most dictators take over a country on the rationale of
preventing a further slide into anarchy. They take power in the name of the
collective will of the people. They define justice as retribution against the
opposition. They define morality by passing laws on censorship, sexual
behavior, the conditions of association.
John Locke (1632-1704)
More than perhaps anyone else, Locke represents the individualism and
liberalism of 17th century England. He believed (as did Hobbes and Rousseau)
that we had to invent new philosophies in order to provide a solid basis for
knowledge, rather than rely on old authorities. He was a proponent of
empiricism, the idea that all knowledge comes from experience. We can only
know the truth therefore by relying on actual experience.
Moral and Political Theory
Morality is a form of demonstrative knowledge, with the precision of
mathematics (in other words, we use logic to reach conclusions about the
nature of reality). If we can define our basic terms with precision, then we can
understand their congruities and incongruities (whether they are logical or
illogical).
Theories of ethics all have to presuppose some notion of what is “Good.” For
Locke, the “Good” is perfectly definable – things are good or evil only reference
to pleasure or pain. That we call good which is apt to cause or increase
pleasure, or diminish pain in us. Therefore morality has to do with choosing or
willing whatever leads to pleasure and minimizes pain.
Furthermore, moral laws are based on what helps us achieve the “Good”. He
says: “moral good and evil is only the conformity or disagreement of our
voluntary actions to some law.”
There are three types of law to which humans are subject:
1. law of opinion – a community’s judgment of what kind of behavior
will lead to happiness: conforming to this law is called virtue,
although this differs according to community.
2. civil law – set by the commonwealth and enforced by the courts.
This tends to follow the first since in most societies the courts
enforce those laws that embody the opinion of the people.
3. divine law – known by reason or revelation – the true rule for
human behavior. In the long run the law of opinion and of civil law
should be made to conform to divine law. Locke is convinced that
he has proven that God exists, and then that we can discover moral
rules that conform to god’s law through the use of demonstrative
logic, and that we can determine moral rules as easily and as
precisely as with mathematics.
These laws are often in contradiction with each other. The reason is that men
everywhere tend to choose immediate pleasure over that which has more long
lasting value.
In the state of nature men have access to Divine Law and so should know what
is right and wrong. However, men do not always use their reason. Also, the law
of opinion is small early communities may be contrary to Divine Law. Therefore
some social order is necessary.
Ultimately, the best law is the divine law, and the law of opinion and the civil law
should ultimately conform to it.
The State of Nature
Locke agreed that one’s personal survival was important for humans living in a
“state of nature” prior to society. However, he didn’t conceive this situation as a
“war of all against all” as did Hobbes. Rather, “men living together according to
reason, without a common superior on earth with authority to judge between
them is properly the state of nature.” Even in the state of nature we know the
moral law because humans are rational by nature, and if we use our rationality
we will understand certain ethical principles.
“Reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that,
being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life,
health, liberty or possessions.”
So this is not simply an egotistical law of self-preservation, but the positive
recognition of each man’s value as a person by virtue of his status as a creature
of God. This implies rights with correlative duties, especially the right to
property.
The Social Contract and Private Property
For Hobbes, there could only be private property after a legal order had been
set up. This legal order is the “social contract.”
Locke says that private property precedes the civil law, for it is grounded in
natural moral law.
The justification for private ownership is labor. Transforming something through
our labor puts something of ourselves in it. We transform what was common
property into private property though our labor.
There is a limit to amount of private property we can accumulate to “as much as
anyone can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he
may by his labor fix a property in”. In other words, no one has a right to
endlessly accumulate property. The amount of property we have should be
limited to what we can reasonably use during our lifetimes. There is a also a
natural right to be able to inherit property.
Civil Government
Men only leave the state of nature (in which they have natural rights and know
the moral law) only to protect their property. The main function of government is
therefore the protection of property. By “property” is meant “lives, liberty and
estates” In the state of nature we are capable of knowing moral law if we put our
minds to it, but, unfortunately, we don’t. When disputes occur, every man is
likely to judge in his own favor. Therefore we need a set of written laws and also
an independent judge.
Because of the inalienable character of rights, political society must rest upon
the consent of men, for “men being…by nature all free, equal and independent,
no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of
another without his consent. We consent to have laws made and enforced by
society, but these laws must confirm those rights we have by nature.
The government should also have the consent of the majority.
If we enjoy the privilege of citizenship, own and exchange property, rely upon
the police and the courts, we have in effect assumed also the responsibilities of
citizenship and consent to the rule of the majority.
Sovereignty
Locke’s concept of the sovereign is very different from Hobbes. The Sovereign
does not have absolute power, but power should be in the hands of a
legislature, which is, in effect, a representation of the majority of citizens. He
emphasized the importance of a division of powers so that those who make the
laws do not also execute them. The executive (president, King, or whatever) is
also subject to the law. The people have the supreme power to remove the
legislative branch if they act contrary to the wishes of the people.
There is a right to rebellion, but only when government has been dissolved by
an external enemy or by an alteration of the legislature. The latter happens, for
example, when the executive substitutes his law for the legislature’s or if he
neglects the execution of the official laws.
Comment:
John Locke was also a religious man. Therefore it is no surprise that the ethical
principles he came up with were consistent with Christian ethics. The difference
is that moral rules no longer came from God through the church, but came from
God in the way He made us. He gave us the ability to reason as a way of
knowing what his will is. This means that everyone of us as individuals has to
“discover” what is morally right and morally wrong using our reasoning.
However, our reason has been given to us by God and therefore it is in the
nature of reason, if used appropriately, to come to certain conclusions about
morality that God wants us to have.
What has been done here is to increase individual responsibility at the expense
of the Church.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Geneva.
Rousseau’s career developed during the French Enlightenment of the 18th
century. Other notable figures, called the philosophes, were Voltaire (16941778), Montesquieu (1689-1755), Diderot (1713-1784), Condorcet (1743-1794)
These were dissident thinkers who challenged the traditional modes of thought
concerning religion, government, and morality. Human reason was believed to
provide the most reliable guide to man’s destiny. Diderot and d’Alembert edited
the Encyclopédie (1751-1780), a 35 volume compendium of all knowledge.
Rousseau, with little formal education, ended up overshadowing the other
thinkers of his time.
Major Themes
Rousseau believed that morals had been corrupted by the replacement of
religion with science, by sensuality in art, by licentiousness in literature, and by
the emphasis upon logic at the expense of feeling. (Discourse on the Arts and
Sciences – 1750).
Man is by nature good, and our modern institutions have made him bad.
In the state of nature, humans were not much better but the arts and sciences
have produced significant changes to make things worse. Our morals were
rude, but natural. Art and literature have moulded our passions to speak an
artificial language. Modern manners have made everyone conform in speech,
dress, and attitude, always following the laws of fashion, never the promptings
of our own nature, so that we no longer dare to appear as we really are.
Mankind has become a kind of herd – we all behave exactly alike – and so we
never know even among our own friends with whom we are dealing. Human
relationships are now full of deceptions. In the state of nature, men could easily
see through one another, an advantage which prevented them from having
many vices.
He also attacked excessive luxury and politicians who talk only about
economics and no longer talk of virtue.
We should acknowledge the role of women – if you want men to be noble and
virtuous, teach women what these things are, because men are what women
make of them.
He was worried that the free marketplace of ideas characteristic of modern
society would lead to moral scepticism. In this regard there are four points he
made about science and society:
1. Science and philosophy seek universal truth, thereby undermining
the validity of local opinion.
2. Science emphasizes proof and evidence, but dominant social
opinions about values cannot be demonstrated conclusively, without
a doubt.
3. Society is held together by faith, not knowledge.
4. Science undermines patriotism because the scientist tends to be
cosmopolitan (today we would say “international”), while patriotism
requires a strong attachment to one’s own society.
To counteract these trends in society, a strong government is necessary
and, according to Rousseau, paves the way for despotism.
The problem is not so much with science and philosophy, because Rousseau
also believed in Reason. It is the popularisation of these methods that is the
problem. Science belongs only to the few. We distort knowledge by trying to
make it popular.
Virtue and morals are simple, and we need to find them in our own hearts.
The Social Contract
We can’t know about the transition from a state of nature to society, but we can
answer why it is that a person ought to obey the laws of government.
“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.”
State of Nature – man was happy because he lived entirely for himself and
therefore possessed an absolute independence. Humans were motivated by a
natural sentiment which inclines every animal to watch over his own
preservation, and which, directed in man by reason and pity, produces humanity
and virtue.
There is no such thing as original sin - the origin of evil is to be found in the later
stages of man’s development in society. With social contacts comes vices, for
now he is motivated by “artificial sentiments” which are born in society and
which lead every individual to make more of himself than every other, and “this
inspires in men all the evils they perpetrate on each other”, including intense
competition for the few places of honour, as well as envy, vanity, pride, and
contempt.
It was probably impossible to live alone simply because of increasing numbers
of people. Problem – how to reconcile original independence with the
inevitability of having to live together?
The solution – a social contract which is a living reality of any present
government. It is a principle that helps overcome the lawlessness of absolute
license and assures liberty, because everyone willingly adjust his conduct to
harmonize with the legitimate freedom of others.
What we lose is our “natural liberty· – an unlimited right to everything, and gain
a “civil liberty” – and a property right in what we possess.
We place ourselves and all our power in common under the supreme direction
of the general will and receive each member as an indivisible part of a whole.
Anyone who refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the
whole body – “this means that he will be forced to be free.”
The “general will” is the will of the sovereign. The sovereign is the total number
of citizens of a given society, the single will which reflects the sum of the wills of
all the individual citizens. We realize that in thinking of our own good that we
should refrain from any behavior that would cause others to turn upon and
injure us. Each citizen understands that his own good and his own freedom is
connected with the common good. Ideally, therefore, each individual’s will is
identical with every other individual’s since they are all directed to the same
purpose, namely the common good. Laws are therefore actually our own will,
and so by disobeying a law we are disobeying ourselves.
“General will” vs. “will of all” – both are concerned with the common good or
justice, but when the “will of all” means voters in a group then there is the
possibility of special interests arising that are contrary to the general will.
Society may break up into factions. Factions or competing interest groups
should not be a part of the state. If people are given adequate information and
had the opportunity to deliberate, even if they do not communicate with each
other, they would choose the path leading to the common good. This provides
the setting for the greatest possible freedom
If someone disobeys a law, and assuming that it represents more than special
interests but the general will. If we disobey a law we are in error. We make
mistakes, and if we use our reason we will have to come to see that we are
mistaken. If we accurately understand the requirements of the common good
(which provides us with the greatest amount of freedom) we would obey, or be
forced to be free.”
Comments
The theory formed with small-town Geneva in mind. It would be more
impractical in a large nation.
The theory constitutes an attack on the Age of Reason.
Gave impetus to the Romantic movement by emphasizing feeling
Revived religion even though he had doubts about some traditional teachings
Provided a new direction for education
Inspired the French revolution
Influenced Immanuel Kant.