Politics and the Social Contract: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau

1
Politics and the Social Contract Hobbes, Locke,
Rousseau
Clark Wolf Director of Bioethics Iowa State
University jwcwolf_at_iastate.edu
2
Argument for Analysis

• Either Ill stay on campus between classes, or
  Ill go home. If I go home, my roommate will
  distract me and I wont get my Philosophy reading
  done. But if I stay on campus, I wont have
  anyplace quiet to work, so I wont be able to get
  my philosophy reading done. I guess I wont get
  my reading done!

3
Argument for Analysis

• 1) Either Ill stay on campus between classes,
  or Ill go home.
• 2) If I go home, my roommate will distract me
  and I wont get my Philosophy reading done.
• 3) But if I stay on campus, I wont have
  anyplace quiet to work, so I wont be able to get
  my philosophy reading done.
• 4) I wont get my reading done!

4
Dilemma

• 1) Either C or H
• 2) If H then D P
• 3) if C then W and P.
• 4) P

5
Argument for Analysis

• If we arm campus police, then there will be more
  guns on campus because the campus police will
  bring them. But if we dont arm campus police,
  then the criminals will bring more guns to
  campus. So no matter what we do, there will be
  more guns on campus.
• If there are guns on campus, its better that
  they be in the hands of the police than in the
  hands of the criminals. So we should arm the
  police.

6
Argument for Analysis

• There can be no such thing as justice unless
  there are institutions to punish people who break
  their promises and contracts. Justice involves
  the rational requirement that people should keep
  their promises and abide by the contracts to
  which they freely agree. But unless there are
  public institutions that will punish people who
  break promises and contracts, it is not rational
  for people keep them. Since requirements of
  justice must be requirements of reason
  (rationality), it isnt just to keep contracts
  where there is no punishment, its just
  irrational and foolish.

7
Argument for Analysis

• 1) Justice involves the rational requirement
  that people should keep their promises and abide
  by the contracts to which they freely agree.
• 2) But unless there are public institutions that
  will punish people who break promises and
  contracts, it is not rational for people keep
  them.
• 3) Since requirements of justice must be
  requirements of reason (rationality), it isnt
  just to keep contracts where there is no
  punishment, its just irrational and foolish.
• 4) There can be no such thing as justice unless
  there are institutions to punish people who break
  their promises and contracts

8
Argument for Analysis

• Terms like good and beautiful essentially
  refer to the attitudes of the person who uses
  them to say that something is beautiful is to
  say that one likes looking at it to say that
  something is good is to say that one appproves of
  it. Since different people find different things
  beautiful and good, such terms change their
  meaning when they are used by different people.
  But reasoning requires terms that have a stable
  meaning proper reasoning cannot be done with
  terms that have a different meaning for
  different speakers. Ethics is the philosophy of
  good, just as aesthetics is the philosophy of
  beauty. It follows that there can be no
  reasoning in ethics or aesthetics.

9
Argument for Analysis

• 1) Ethics is the philosophy of good, just as
  aesthetics is the philosophy of beauty.
• 2) To say that something is beautiful is to say
  that one likes looking at it to say that
  something is good is to say that one approves of
  it.
• 3) Since different people find different things
  beautiful and good, such terms change their
  meaning when they are used by different people.
• 4) Reasoning requires terms that have a stable
  meaning
• 5) Therefore, there can be no reasoning in
  ethics or aesthetics.

10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12

• I. Hobbess Psychology and Method  A. Some
  Background on Hobbes  B. Language, Reasoning,
  and Knowledge Foundationalism and Definitions
   C. Psychology. Is Hobbes a Psychological
  Egoist?  D. Perspectival Value...
• II. Hobbes's State of Nature and the Foundations
  of Civil Society  A. Hobbes State of Nature  B.
  To the State of "Warre"  C. Hobbes SON compared
  with "The Prisoner's Dilemma"  D. Natural Laws
  and Natural Rights

13

• Language and Knowledge Right Definitions and
  the "Sticky twigs of language..."
• "Seeing that truth consisteth in the right
  ordering of names in our affirmations, a man that
  seeketh precise truth had need to remember what
  every name he uses stands for, and to place it
  accordingly or else he will find himself
  entangled in words, as a bird in lime twigs, the
  more he struggles the more belimed. And therefore
  in geometry, (which is the only science that it
  hath pleased God hitherto to bestow on mankind)
  men begin at settling the significations of their
  words which settling of significations they call
  definitions and place them in the beginning of
  their reckoning." -Leviathan, Ch 4, p. 501.

14

• Reason REASON... is nothing but reckoning (that
  is, adding and subtracting) of the consequences
  of general names agreed upon for the marking and
  signifying of our thoughts. (Ch 5, p. 503)

15

• Knowledge Hobbes is an Empiricist. Knowledge
  comes from our senses. False and misleading
  ideas we get are added by imagination and
  "fancy."
• Empiricism The theory that all knowledge comes
  to us through the senses.
• Insignificant Speech Literally meaningless noise
  presented under the false guise of communication.
  Hobbes believes that we become literally
  incoherent when we are not careful about the
  meanings of the terms we employ.

16

• "The common sort of men seldom speak
  insignificantly, and are therefore by those other
  egregious persons counted idiots. But to be
  assured their words are without any thing
  correspondent to them in the mind, there would
  need some examples which if any man require, let
  him take a School-man into his hands and see if
  he can translate any one chapter concerning any
  difficult point, as the Trinity the Deity the
  nature of Christ' transubstantiation free-will,
  c. into any of the modern tongues, so as to be
  able to make the same intelligible. (...) What is
  the meaning of these words "The first cause does
  not necessarily inflow anything into the second,
  by force of the essential subordination of the
  second causes, by which it may help it to work."
  They are the translation of the title of the
  sixth chapter of Suarez' first book, Of the
  Concourse, Motion, and Help of God. When men
  write whole volumes of such stuff, are they not
  mad, or intent to make others so?" (Ch 8, end, p.
  617)

17
Hobbes on Philosophical Nonsense

• Philosophers are the worst, according to Hobbes
  "And of men, those are of all most subject to
  absurdity that profess philosophy. For it is
  most true that Cicero saith of them somewhere
  that there can be nothing so absurd but may be
  found in the books of philosophers." (Ch 5p. 504)
  
• The Point Hobbes hopes to clear up earlier
  philosophical messes by making language precise.
  He hopes to do for politics, morals, and
  knowledge, what Euclid did for Geometry.

18
Hobbes on Psychology and Human Motivation

• Psychological Egoism All human actions are
  (ultimately) selfish.
• Ethical Egoism All right actions are selfish.
• Questions
• 1) Why would anyone believe these theories?
• 2) Are these two consistent with one another?
  Why or why not?3) Is Hobbes a psychological
  egoist?
• 4) Is Hobbes an ethical egoist?

19
POWER AND DEATH THE BASIC HOBBESIAN MOTIVES

• "I put for a general inclination of all mankind,
  a perpetual and restless desire for power after
  power, that ceaseth only in death. And the cause
  of this is not always that a man hopes for a more
  intensive delight than he has already attained
  to or that he cannot be content with a moderate
  power but because he cannot assure the power and
  means to live well, which he hath present,
  without the acquisition of more. And from hence
  it is that Kings, whose power is greatest, turn
  their endeavours to the assuring it at home by
  laws or abroad by wars and when that is done,
  there succeedeth a new desire in some of fame
  from new conquest in others, of ease and sensual
  pleasure in others, of admiration, or being
  flattered for excellence in some art, or other
  ability of the mind." (Ch 11 p. 523)

20
Hobbesian Psychology Egoism?

• IS HOBBES A PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOIST?
• For He does seem to define our words in the
  language of self-interest...
• Against Not all of our interests may be
  self-regarding. When we act on other-regarding
  interests, we're not egoists. In MAN AND STATE
  Hobbes makes it clear that he is not a
  psychological egoist. (Good thing too, since no
  reputable psychologist now regards psychological
  egoism as a plausible theory of human
  motivation.)

21
Value

• Value and "Good"
• "Whatsoever is the object of any man's appetite
  or desire, that it is which he for his part
  calleth good and the object of his hate and
  aversion, evil and of his contempt vile and
  inconsiderable. For these words of good, evil,
  and contemptible, are ever used with relation to
  the person that useth them there being nothing
  simply and absolutely so nor any common rule of
  good and evil, to be taken from the nature of
  objects themselves but from the person of the
  man. (...)" (Ch 6, p. 506)

22
Value Realism and Value Subjectivism

• CompareHamlet "...there's nothing good or bad
  but thinking makes it so."
• Epictetus Things are not good or bad in
  themselves, but only in relation to our desires
  and aversions. So it's 'bad' to want something
  and not get it, or to be averse to something and
  get it. But, Epictetus will go on, if you train
  yourself not to want or be averse to the wrong
  things, then nothing will be good or bad for
  you.
• BUT BY CONTRAST Compare Plato on "Good." What is
  Plato's reason for thinking that "good" can be a
  non-subjective term? Does Plato's reason apply to
  Hobbes' theory?

23
Terms of "inconstant signification" and
reasoning a source of "insignificant speech"

• "The names of such things as affect us, that is,
  which please and displease us because all men be
  not alike affected with the same thing, nor the
  same man at all times, are in the common
  discourses of men of inconstant signification.
  For seeing all names are imposed to signify our
  conceptions, and all our affections are but
  conceptions, when we conceive the same things
  differently, we can hardly avoid different naming
  of them. For though the nature of that we
  conceive, be the same yet the diversity of our
  reception of it, in respect of different
  constitutions of body and prejudices of opinion,
  gives every thing a tincture of our different
  passions. And therefore in reasoning a man must
  take heed of words which besides the
  signification of what we imagine of their nature,
  have a signification also of the nature,
  disposition, and interest of the speaker such as
  are the names of virtues and vices for what one
  man calleth wisdom another calleth fear, and one
  cruelty what another justice, one prodigality
  what another magnanimity, and one gravity what
  another stupidity, c. And therefore such names
  can never be true grounds of any ratiocination."
  (Ch 4, end p. 502)

24

• Paradiastole OED 2071 "A figure in which a
  favorable turn is given to something unfavorable
  by the use of an expression that conveys only
  part of the truth... When with a milde
  interpretation or speech we colour others or our
  own faults, as when we call a subtile man wise, a
  bold fellow courageous, or a prodical man
  liberal... pradastiole by some learned
  Rhetoriticians called a faulty turn of speech,
  opposing the truth by false terms and wrong
  names. You will not be asked to define this on
  an exam!

25

• Example from Plato Conversation between
  Clessippus and Dionysdorus from Plato's
  Euthydemus
• You say that you have a dog?Yes, a villain
  of one, said Clesippus.And he has
  puppies?Yes, and they are very like
  himself.And the dog is the father of
  them?Yes, he said, I certainly saw him and
  the mother of the pupps come together.And is
  he not yours?To be sure he is.Then he is a
  father, and he is yours, ergo he is your father,
  and the puppies are your brothers!
• The Point Hobbes believed that fallacious
  arguments like these could be avoided, if only we
  take care to use words carefully, according to
  firm, supportable definitions.

26
Hobbes on Values and Reasoning

• Implications for a Philosophy of "Good"
• 1) Evaluative terms like 'good' 'bad' 'better'
  'worse' are perspectival. 2) Perspectival terms
  cannot be the basis for reasoning.3) Therefore
  there can be no reasoning about what is good or
  bad or better or worse.
• Question How would Aristotle or Plato respond to
  Hobbes Argument? Where have we seen a position
  like this before? (Thrasymachus in Plato's
  Republic, Book I!)

27
Hobbes's State of Nature and the Foundations of
Civil Society

• The Question Given Hobbes' account of human
  motivation and the desire for power (and fear of
  death), how is it possible for human beings to
  cooperate with one another in society? How could
  we move from a pre-social situation (a state of
  nature) into a civil society with laws and
  government? What do we gain (and loose) in the
  transition from the state of nature to the state
  of civil society?

28
Hobbess State of Nature

• Rough Equality, No exclusive rights to anything.
• "Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties
  of body and mind' as that though there be found
  one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or
  of quicker mind than another' yet when all is
  reckoned together, the difference between man and
  man is not so considerable as that one man can
  thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which
  another may not pretend as well as he. For as to
  the strength of body, the weakest has strength
  enough to kill the strongest, either by secret
  machination, or by confederacy with others that
  are in the same danger with himself." (Ch 13 p.
  531)

29
State of Nature is a State of War

•  "And from this equality of ability, ariseth
  equality of hope in the attaining of our ends.
  And therefore if any two men desire the same
  thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy,
  they become enemies and in the way to their end,
  endeavor to destroy or subdue one another. (Ch
  13, p. 531)

30
War and the Causes of Quarrel

• "In the nature of man, we find three principle
  causes of quarrel. First competition, second,
  diffidence, thirdly glory. The first maketh men
  invade for gain, the second for safety, the third
  for reputation. The first use violence to make
  themselves masters of other mens persons, wives,
  children, and cattle the second to defend them
  the third for trifles as a word, a smile, a
  different opinion, and any other sign of
  undervalue." (632)

31
State of Nature is a State of War

• "Hereby it is manifest that during the time men
  live without a common power to keep them in awe,
  they are in that condition which is called war
  and such a war as is of every man against every
  man." (632)

32
Why War is Bad

• What is life like in the "state of nature," this
  war of "all against all?
•  "In such condition there is no place for
  industry because the fruit thereof is uncertain
  and consequently no culture of the earth no
  navigation nor use of the commodities that may
  be imported by sea no commodious building no
  instruments of moving and removing such things as
  require much force' no knowledge of the face of
  the earth no account of time no arts no
  letters no society and which is worst of all,
  continual fear and danger of violent death and
  the life of man solitery, poor, nasty, brutish,
  and short." (632-33)

33
Justice in War, and the Prospects for Peace

• In such circumstances all talk of justice is
  meaningless, claims Hobbes
• "To this war of every man against every man,
  this also is consequent. That nothing can be
  unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice
  and injustice have there no place. Where there is
  no common power, there is no law, where no law no
  injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two
  cardinal virtues. justice and injustice are none
  of the faculties neither of the body nor
  mind.(...)
•  The passions that incline men toward peace are
  fear of death, desire of such things as are
  necessary to commodious living, and a hope by
  their industry to obtain them. And reason
  suggesteth convenient articles of peace, upon
  which men may be drawn to agreement. These
  articles are they which otherwise are called the
  Laws of Nature whereof I shall speak more
  particularly in the following two chapters. (633)
  

34
COMPETITION, GLORY, AND THE CAUSES OF WARRE!!

• To the State of "Warre" Equality Competition,
  "Diffidence," and "Glory" gt WARRE of all
  against all.
• Competition Limited goods, we all want
  'em.Diffidence We all fear for our safety and
  mistrust others.
• Glory Desire for reputation over-estimating our
  own capacities, underestimating costs of war.

35
Law and Right

• Natural Laws and Natural RightsRight What you
  can do without obstructionLaw A constraint on
  liberty.
• Hobbesian Right of Nature The liberty to use
  one's power to protect one self however one sees
  fit to do it. Hobbesian Laws of Nature rules of
  reason that tell us to do what it is in our
  interest to do.

36
Right of Nature in the SON

• Right of Nature In the SON (State of Nature),
  everyone has a right to everything.
• "And because the condition of man is a condition
  of war of everyone against everyone, in which
  case everyone is governed by his own reason and
  there is nothing he can make use of that may not
  be a help unto him in preserving his life against
  his enemies, if followeth that in such a
  condition everyone has a right to every thing,
  even to one anothers' body. And therefore as long
  as this natural right of every man to every thing
  endureth, there can be no security to any man,
  (how strong or wise soever he be), of living out
  the time which nature ordinarily alloweth men to
  live. And consequently it is a precept, or
  general rule of reason that every man ought to
  endeavour peace as far as he has hope of
  attaining it and when he cannot obtain it, that
  he may seek and use all helps and advantages of
  war. The first branch of which rule containeth
  the first and fundamental law of nature which is
  to seek peace and follow it. The second the sum
  of the right of nature which is by all means we
  can, to defend ourselves.

37
Laws of Nature in SON

• First Law of Nature 80 Seek peace.
• Second Law of Nature "...that a man be willing,
  when others are so too, as far-forth for peace
  and defense of himself he shall think it
  necessary, to lay down this right to all things
  and be contented with so much liberty aggainst
  other men as he would allow other men against
  himself. For as long as every man holdeth this
  right of doing anthing he liketh, so long are all
  men in the condition of war. But if other men
  will not lay down their right, as well as he,
  then there is no reason for anyone to divest
  himself of his for that were to expose himself
  to prey (which no man is bound to) rather than to
  dispose himself to peace. This is that law of the
  Gospel whatsoever you require that others should
  do to you, that do ye to them. (636)
• Second Law of Nature Be willing to contract to
  lay down some of the liberties implicit in right
  of nature to seek peace, but only when others are
  also willing.

38
The Prisoners Dilemma

• The Original Prisoner's Dilemma Avery and Terry
  have been captured during the commission of a
  minor crime, but the DA knows that they are
  guilty of a much more serious crime, which they
  committed together. The DA places them in
  separate rooms, and says to each one If either
  of you individually confesses and turns states
  evidence on your accomplice, you will be set
  free. But if your accomplice confesses and turns
  states evidence while you keep silent, we will
  punish you with the full force of the law In
  this case, 50 years in prison. If you both turn
  states evidence, we will punish you only a little
  bit less severely you will each receive 49 years
  in prison. However, if neither of you confess,
  the most we can give you for your minor crime is
  that you will both receive one year in prison.

39
The Prisoners Dilemma

• In the table below, outcomes are represented in
  "years in prison," with Avery's sentence first
  and Terry's sentence later so that 0,50 refers
  to the outcome in which Avery goes free (0 years
  in prison) and Terry gets a 50 year sentence.
• Payoffs are represented in years in prison, and
  as ordered pairs
• Payoff for Avery, Payoff for Terry

Action of Terry ? Action of Avery ? Keep Silent Turn States Evidence
Keep Silent 1,1 Second best for both, and really not that bad. 50,0 Worst for Avery, best for Terry
Turn States Evidence 0,50 Worst for Terry, Best for Avery 49,49 Third best for both, and almost as bad as the worst.
40
Prisoners Dilemma The Dominance Argument

• Dominance Argument If each wants to minimize
  years spent in prison, then Avery and Terry
  should both reason as follows The other person
  will either choose to keep silent, or to turn
  state's evidence. "cooperate" or to "defect." I
  can not influence the choice that person makes--
  in this sense, it is as if the choice has already
  been made.
• Suppose my partner turns states evidence Then
  the only outcomes I could achieve are 45 year in
  prison (if I also turn states evidence) or 50
  years in prison (if I keep silent). Better 45
  years in prison than 50 years, so if I knew that
  my partner was planning to sell me down the river
  I wouldn't want to be a sucker I would want to
  turn states evidence too.
• Suppose my partner keeps silent Then the
  outcomes available to me include freedom (if I
  turn evidence) or one year in prison (if I keep
  silent too). Freedom is better than a year in
  prison, so if I knew that my partner was planning
  to keep silent, then it would be better for me to
  defect.
• It follows that no matter what the other person
  does, I will minimize my years in prison if I
  turn states evidence. A choice is Dominant just
  in case its the best choice no matter what other
  people do. So breaking trust is a
• Dominant Strategy.

41
Prisoners Dilemma Some Terms

• Dominant Strategy A strategic option dominates
  alternatives just in case the actor is better off
  choosing this option no matter what anyone else
  does.
• Nash Equilibrium The outcome achieved if each
  "player" adopts an individually rational
  strategy. Which outcome in the matrix above is
  the Nash Equilibrium?
• Cooperative Outcome The outcome achieved if
  both "players" cooperate with one another rather
  than defecting. In the example above, the
  outcome in which we both keep silent is the
  cooperative outcome.
• Pareto Optimum An outcome is a pareto optimum
  if there is no alternative outcome that is
  preferred by at least one person which is not
  worse for some other.
• Paradox In the "Prisoner's Dilemma," the Nash
  equilibrium is worse for both. So if both
  players are rational and make the choice that
  is likely to maximize individual benefit, the
  outcome is worse
• for both.
• In the prisoners dilemma, the rational
  outcome is not the pareto optimum. Does this
  ever really happen?

42
From Prisoners Dilemma to Public Goods to
Commons Tragedy

• ...the coral reefs of the Philippean and Tongan
  islands are currently being ravaged by
  destructive fishing techniques. Where fishermen
  once used lures and traps, they now pour bleach
  (i.e. sodium hypochlorite) into the reefs.
  Partially asphyxiated, the fish float to the
  surface and become easy prey. Unfortunately, the
  coral itself suffocates along with the fish, and
  the dead reef ceases to be a viable habitat.
  ("Blast fishing," also widely practiced, consists
  of using dynamite rather than bleach.) What goes
  through the minds of these fishermen as they
  reduce some of the most beautiful habitats in the
  world to rubble? Perhaps some of them think,
  quite correctly, that if they do not destroy a
  given reef, it will shortly be destroyed by
  someone else, so they might as well be the ones
  to catch the fish.
• -David Schmidtz, The Limits of Government.

43
From Prisoners Dilemma to Public Goods to
Commons Tragedy
Everyone Else ? Me? Fish with lures and traps Fish with Dynamite and Bleach
Fish with Lures and Traps Resource is preserved, we all catch less fish. Resource is destroyed, and I catch less than anyone else.
Fish with Dynamite and Bleach Resource is preserved (my destruction isnt enough to waste the resource) and I get lots of fish! Resource is destroyed and at least I get as much as everyone else.
44
Prisoners Dilemmas and Commons Tragedies

• Thomas Hobbes on Covenants in the State of
  Nature (Leviathan, Part I, Chapter 14)
• "If a covenant be made, wherein neither of the
  parties perform presently, but trust one another
  in the condition of mere nature, (which is a
  condition of war of every man against every man,)
  upon any reasonable suspicion, it is void but if
  there be a common power set over them both, with
  right and force sufficient to compel performance,
  it is not void. For he that performeth first has
  no assurance that the other will perform after
  because the bonds of words are too weak to bridle
  men's ambition, avarice, anger, and other
  passions, without the fear of some coercive
  power which in the condition of mere nature,
  where all men are equal and judges of the
  justness of their own fears, cannot possibly be
  supposed. And therefore he which performeth
  first, does but betray himself to his enemy
  contrary to the right (he can never abandon) of
  defending his life, and means of living."

45

• The Single-Shot Crop Harvesting Dilemma I need
  your help to bring in my crop of grain, which
  ripens in late summer. You will need my help to
  bring in your apples which ripen in early fall.
  Can we achieve an agreement to cooperate? Not in
  the state of nature, implies Hobbes.
• Your choice in late summer Help me or don't help
  me. My choice comes in early fall Help you (keep
  my "contractual promise") or don't help you
  (break my promise).
• Payoffs in the matrix below are given in terms of
  the rank order of the outcome in question for
  Me, and You. So 1,3 means that the box in
  question is my first choice outcome and your
  third choice outcome.

You? Me? Help me this summer Dont Help me
Help you in Fall 2,1 Second best for me, best you can hope for. This outcome is not achievable, since I wont help you unless Im compensated.
Dont help you in the Fall (Break my promise) 1,3 Best for me, since I gain your cooperation at no cost. (Worst for you, Sucker!) 3,2 Third best for me, since Id rather cooperate than not. Second best for you, since at least youre not exploited by your unscrupulous neighbor.
46
The Elemental Form of the Prisoners Dilemma
In the box below, outcomes are identified as 1st,
2nd, 3rd, or 4th choice preferences instead of
quantitative payoffs.
You ? Me? Cooperate Defect
Cooperate 2,2 4,1
Defect 1,4 3,3
47
The Elemental Form of the Prisoners Dilemma

• Sadly, the Logic works the same even when the
  cooperative benefit is only slightly less than
  the exploitation payoff the downside risk that
  one might get the sucker payoff if one
  cooperates is sufficient to make it narrowly
  rational to defect every time. In the matrix
  below, payoffs represent the prize or reward that
  each person will get

You ? Me? Cooperate Defect
Cooperate 99.99,99.99 0,100
Defect 100,0 .01,.01
48
Conditions for a Commons Tragedy

• Nonrivalrous Consumption One persons
  consumption of the good does not prevent others
  from enjoying it as well.
• Non-Excludability Noncontributors (or
  noncooperators) cannot be excluded from using the
  common.
• In fact, these conditions are a matter of
  degree. Few resources are purely nonrivalrous or
  purely nonexcludable.

49
Two Problems that Create a PD or Commons Tragedy

• ASSURANCE PROBLEM Even if people would prefer to
  cooperate might not be willing to do so unless
  they can be assured that others would also
  cooperate. (Shows that good will is not enough)
• COORDINATION PROBLEM People might be willing to
  cooperate IF ONLY they could coordinate their
  actions, but they may be unable to achieve the
  necessary coordination to make cooperation
  worth-while. (Shows that good will is not enough,
  even if people know that others are good willed)

50
Hobbes on the Problems in the SON

• No way to coordinate
• no way to cooperate
• no way to promise, even when it would be better
  for all
• No way to make covenants
• no way to be secure in property
• no way to gain fruits of prudence or creativity
• No possibility for 'Justice' in the SON
  "Covenants without the sword are but words..."
  (Ch 17)

51
The Prisoners Dilemma

• In the table below, outcomes are represented in
  "years in prison," with Avery's sentence first
  and Terry's sentence later so that 0,50 refers
  to the outcome in which Avery goes free (0 years
  in prison) and Terry gets a 50 year sentence.
• Payoffs are represented in years in prison, and
  as ordered pairs
• Payoff for Avery, Payoff for Terry

Action of Terry ? Action of Avery ? Keep Silent Turn States Evidence
Keep Silent 1,1 Second best for both, and really not that bad. 50,0 Worst for Avery, best for Terry
Turn States Evidence 0,50 Worst for Terry, Best for Avery 45,45 Third best for both, and almost as bad as the worst.
52
Hobbes Solution The State as Crime Boss

• What happens to the Prisoners Dilemma if we add
  a crime boss who will murder anyone who rats on
  another member of the Gang?

Action of Avery ? Action of Terry ? Keep Silent Turn States Evidence
Keep Silent 1,1 Each gets one year in prison. First choice for both! 50,0 dead Bad for Avery who gets 50 yrs. Worst for Terry who gets dead.
Turn States Evidence 0 dead, 50 Bad for Terry who gets 50 yrs. Worst for Avery who gets dead dead, dead Worst for both, since the kingpin rubs them both out.
53
On the Hobbesian Solution

• Upshot With a crime kingpin, Keeping silent
  becomes a dominant strategy for both, and they
  can achieve cooperation.
• According to Hobbes, this is what the threat of
  legal sanction does for us all.
• The function of the state is to hold a sword over
  our heads and threaten us into behaving well.
  This, he argues, will solve the problem of the
  commons! While it is usually a disadvantage to
  have someone holding a sword (or a threat) over
  your head, Hobbes shows that it can sometimes be
  an advantage.
• The modern correlate of the Hobbesian view is the
  theory that commons problems must be solved by
  restrictive legislation.
• Sadly, this may sometimes be the only way to go.
• Covenants without the sword are but words,
• with no strength to secure a man at all.
  -Thomas Hobbes

54
Hobbes and the Foole

• 1) Hobbes urges, contrary to the Foole, that
  justice not contrary to reason2) He argues that
  covenant breakers must be excluded from
  society
• QUESTION How can people lay down their rights to
  a sovereign? All must act at ONCE, else it's no
  good. (Coordination and assurance problems arise
  here too.)

55
From Hobbes to Locke

• John Locke Second Treatise of Government
• Locke's State of Nature1) State of "Perfect
  Freedom," but within the "law of nature."2)
  State of "natural equality." Locke refers not
  only to (rough) equality of abilities and
  capacities, but also to the fact that all are
  equally bound by the law of nature.
• AN OBJECTION TO HOBBES Without initial honesty
  and truth telling, we can't leave SON. Once we
  GET a sovereign, Hobbes has no problem, but
  before the sovereign, we can't contract.
• The Upshot We cant make a social contract
  unless one is already in place.
• LOCKE'S SOLUTION "Truth and keeping faith
  belongs to men as men, and not as members of
  society."(745)

56
(No Transcript)