(This is the first post I’ll write about freedom)

Imagine a world with no rules, leadership, or restrictions. A world without rules might sound great, you could do whatever you want. Then you remember that everyone else is also doing whatever they want. Thomas Hobbes described this as the “State of Nature” and life in it isn’t good. Imagine in the State of Nature that you want potato chips and you only know one person who makes them well. In this world, there is only one way to get the chips, you have to steal them. Because you live in a world like this, no one trusts each other and everyone can be seen as an enemy. Basically, in this world, you have a ton of freedom and barely any security. If there are any leaders in this world, they would probably lead with fear because there isn’t really a reason for anyone to follow them. Thomans Hobbes said the way to fix the state of this world was with a contract. With a contract you could exchange potato chips for money. The only conditions for a contract is that they have to make both people’s lives better and both people have to be free agents when they make it (so slavery is a no). This is contractarianism.

This theory, unlike the two previous ones, isn’t saying that morality is inherently “real.” Instead, it’s saying that we, as a people, make morality real. This means morality can change if the contract makers change their mind. This may remind you of laws or amendments to rules. What I think is interesting about contractarianism is that it says that too much freedom isn’t a good thing. Many books, movies, and quotes are about this ultimate freedom to make your own choices, but ultimate freedom doesn’t really exist. I feel free because I can leave my house and do whatever hobbies I want, but I can’t break the law, at least without getting punished. Most contracts are explicit, like the ones you make when you want potato chips. However, there are also implicit ones, ones that you didn’t actually agree to but are still in. Imagine you get a ticket for parking in a blocked off street and you think this is really unfair. You didn’t agree to the parking rule so you shouldn’t be bound to it. Contractarians say this is actually fair. You benefit from your country’s system, there are authorities to protect you, good roads that you can drive on, and (hopefully) a clean water system you can drink from. So because you have rights in this system you are also expected to have obligations. You have to pay-in but you reap benefits.

In a way everyone is already a contractarian because we all, explicitly or implicitly, are in a contract. A lot of defection, when someone breaks the agreement of the contract, happens in this theory, especially between strangers. Albert Tucker came up with something called “The Prisoners’ Dilemma”, and it’s an interesting thought experiment. Imagine you and your partner have been in taken for criminal interrogation and are in separate rooms. The cops don’t have enough evidence to convict you of your major crime and they hope to get you guys on a lesser charge. They give you each the same options. If you stay silent, and so does your partner, you’ll each get one year in prison. If you stay silent and your partner tells on you, you get three years. If you tell on your partner and he stays silent you get zero years, and if your partner also tells, you both get two years. If these partners are both rational agents, they would squeal. If they tell they can get either zero or two years vs the one or three years if they stay silent. So they squeal and each of them get two years. This is the rational choice but they’d actually be better off if they both stayed silent, but they have to trust each other to make the same choice.

The moral of that story was that cooperation is useful but only if the contractors have mutual trust. This is why many strangers break their contracts and decide to look after themselves. Defection happens less to people who know each other for a reason, breaking promises to friends has social negative consequences. People become angry when their friends break promises they didn’t have to make. Society is built on the assumption that people will honor their promises. It’s the reason people assume others are generally telling the truth and it’s “liar” is an insult.

Contractarianism is flexible in the way that morality isn’t set and you can change the rules you’ve placed for yourselves. Contractarianism is also somewhat binding. The theory values integrity, so if you make a promise (again implicit or explicit), you’re obligated to keep it. The theory suggests that people are better off without ultimate freedom and are better off with rules and obligations. Fortunately for us as a society, we get to choose the obligations we incur.

Thank you for reading, next week I will talk about existentialism as part of the freedom series.