Unlike the vast majority of English words the definition of moral philosophy is immensely disputed upon. The only agreeable definition, by Socrates, is vague in its explanation. There are however, numerous competing theories which seek to better explain what it means to live morally. The Social Contract Theory, developed in the seventeenth century, is one such theory. Although unique in its explanation, the theory ultimately lacks in its overall evaluation.
Philosopher Thomas Hobbes’s argued in favor for the theory saying morality should be defined as “the solution to a practical problem that arises for self-interested human beings” (Rachels, EMP, 83). The problem he is referring to is a society without government institutions also known as “the state of nature”. Hobbes believed the state of nature would be undesirable for everyone because all humans have the same needs. There are basic needs …show more content…
In this way, morality is utilized as a solution to prisoner’s dilemma-type problems. For the sake of example, Rachels asks the reader to decide among two methods of going about life. The first method is exclusively “acting selfishly” while the other method is “acting benevolently”. This produces four possibilities: “(a) you could be selfish while other people are benevolent; (b) others could be selfish while you are benevolent; (c) everyone could be selfish; and (d) everyone could be benevolent” (Rachels, EMP, 87-88). In all four possibilities the reader would be better off if they chose to act selfishly. The hitch, however, is that everyone else must also make the same decision. After similar reasoning, they too would likely choose to act exclusively selfishly. This would lead to the same war like state Hobbes referred to earlier. Once again, a social contract or “established laws and social customs that protect the interests of everyone involved” is needed (Rachels, EMP,