SOCIAL CONTRACT ETHICS AND CARE ETHICS 10
The attack on the memorial was extremely unfair, illogical andmorally wrong. It is clear from the reading that an actual member inreal life had died and the rivals were aware. The memorial servicewas a way of paying the last tribute to the deceased and the rivalgroup needed to join hands with their counterparts. Despite being agame, carrying an attack on a memorial service which was held inrespect of one of the players seems insensitive and immoral. Withregard to breaking gaming social contract, the answer is debatable.It is evident that the purpose of the game is to win as many pointsas possible. World of Warcraft is a game that involves war andwinning or killing the opponents wins someone or a player additionalpoints. However, in this scenario, it is clear that the memorialservice that was being held was not for a character in the game butfor an actual and live member. This scenario indicates that theopponents who attacked and killed other character in a memorialservice broke the social contract of gaming.
This is one of the most unethical and immoral thing to do. Itis abundantly clear that the decision to fake or fudge the data wouldbe unacceptable and immoral on the face of it. It is well known thatphysicians work under a code of conduct which they must adhere to allthe times. More often than not, the code of conduct by the physiciansis in line with the social contract and would indeed be accepted bythe society (Morris, 2014). For instance, it is both immoral andunacceptable for a physician to fudge the data of a patient forwhatever reason. Fudging the data would mean denying anotherextremely needy person the opportunity to receive a kidneytransplant. Despite the patient whose data is being considered is arelative, it is clear that such a move to fudge the data would resultin suffering for another person. It is evident that there is no lifethat is more worth than the other and therefore the physician shouldnot fudge the data.
The virtue perspective of ethics comes into play in this scenario.Whereas there might be rules and guidelines that the physician ismeant to follow, it is important to state that the morals and ethicsof the particular physician are extremely important in this case. Itshould be clear to the physician that denying one of the more needypatients an opportunity to get a transplant is immoral and unethical(Morris, 2014). The physician ought to think of what is moral andwhat is ethical in such scenario. Additionally, social contractperspective of ethics comes into play in this scenario. This is dueto the fact the society that the physician belongs would not allow aneedier patient to suffer as a result of the physician favoring arelative. The society would call for fairness and situation wherethere is social welfare for all the people.
This act will not comprise of an immoral action. This is due to thefact that there will be neither society nor other people who would beaffected by my actions. It is clear from the social contract theorythat the rules governing behavior by individuals set and observed bythe society. In this scenario, am the last person on earth andtherefore my actions will have no effects on anyone else except me.Being the last person on earth, I would set my own rules andregulations and observe them as well. The toe line is essentiallydrawn to ensure that there is fairness as people play and that nobodyfeels oppressed. However, in situation where only one person isplaying, there is no need for such rules and regulations. Rules mustapply to every member of a group and must be uniform.
A group of people may or may not constitute a community in whichthere can be rules and regulations are observed. The essence ofmorals and ethics is to ensure that the other people around you arenot hurt by your actions. In other words, the social contract looksinto the consequences of a person’s actions towards others.Therefore, in this situation, it is evident that the actions of oneperson will have an effect on the other people. For instance,behaviors such as stealing would greatly affect the other people(Morris, 2014). Given the scenario above, I would outlaw stealing. Itis clear that in a society or a community, taking away what someoneelse has gathered together is immoral and unethical. In order to livetogether in harmony, it is essential to outlaw stealing and make itillegal. Every person in the group should observe this rule in orderto enhance equality. The consequences of jaywalking are extremelyclear. Legalizing such an action in a place where there are cars andpeople walking would be disastrous. It would be both unethical andimmoral for people to be knocked down as they jaywalk. It wouldhowever be essential to know the number of people who jaywalk sincewhen all people are driving there would be no need to have such alaw in place.
In a society where some people have cars and others do not have, itis only prudent to have mutual respect. It is critical for the peoplewalking to respect the people who drive while at the same time, thedrivers should respect the pedestrians. This is only the ethicalthing that would ensure that the social contract is keenly observedand followed.
Ten rules in a social contract
A social contract exists where there is a government and a societywhich foregoes its various freedoms in order to abide by the termsand laws put across by the social contract. A social contract cancomprise of numerous rules which the government should ensure thatthey are adhered to (Morris, 2014). The rules that a governmentcreates are meant to create peace, joy and harmony amongst thepeople. It is assumed that without such rules and regulations, thesociety would be disorganized and there would be no peace andharmony. The following are ten rules that I believe should beincluded in a social contract
Corruption should be outlawed
Stealing should be illegal
Jaywalking should be outlawed
Drivers should not over speed
Employment should be based on merit
Equal opportunities for men and women
Disorderly behavior in public is a civil wrong
Salaries should be harmonized for all employees
Euthanasia should be outlawed
Abortion should be outlawed
The above mention rules are extremely necessary for a country or asociety with a government. This would ensure that such a societylives happily and in harmony. When corruption is outlawed in asociety, it is clear that there will be equal distribution of wealthand therefore the society will be happy. Issues such as abortion makea society look rotten and as one that lacks morals. Therefore,outlawing abortion would cleanse the society and give it a goodreputation. Equality should at the center of a social contract. It isextremely wrong to have some people or one gender having more powersand privileges than other genders. More often than not, women arediscriminated and oppressed by males and this should be stopped(Morris, 2014). There should never be any person who ends the life ofanother person. This is in regard to the aspect of euthanasia wheremedical practitioners are allowed to end the life of patients who arein chronic pain. This should be outlawed since ending a person’slife is not only immoral and unethical.
Edward’s argument is that there is no single definition ofwhat comprises good. In other words, Edward asserts that there are noother words or properties that can be used to describe what is good.Something that is good such as a good behavior can only be describedusing the term good and not any other term. He also states that otherthings such as pleasant can never be said to be good (Morris, 2014).In terms of ethics, Edward argued that what is moral is natural andwhatever is immoral is non-natural. He was also a strong proponent ofcommon sense. His arguments were the hinges of philosophy in Americanacademies since the 1960s.
Part two essay
This essay will mainly focus on the Rawl’s social contracttheory as well as the Gauthier’s social contract theory. The essaywill focus on why one theory is better than other while givingevidence and counter arguments. The essay will also provide aconclusion at the end. There is a thesis statement that is belowhighlighting which social contract theory between the two is betterthan the other. The essay will discuss the elements of each theory,as well as make arguments on why one of the theories is better thanthe other.
Thesis statement: the two social contract theories seemplausible and applicable however, John Rawl’s theory is betterthan Gauthier’s theory when applied in a society or a practicalsituation.
The social contract theory by John Rawl’s is more elaborate thanthe previous theories of social contract. John argues that theethical systems and rules that govern people should be developed byneutral people who do not have any personal interest in the society.In other words, the people who draft the ethical rules in societyshould not be aware of their social, political or economic status insuch a society. With this fact in mind, it is clear that such peoplewould develop ethical rules and regulations that are neutral and thatwould serve every person regardless of their status (Morris, 2014).The developers of the ethical rules would come up with rules that arefavorable to all people in society since they do not know where theybelong in such a society. This is opposed to a situation where thedevelopers of the ethical rules know their ethical, social and oreconomic status in the society. They would only develop ethical rulesthat are favorable to them or to the class they belong be it social,ethical or economic class.
Gauthier’s approach to social contract is different from John’sapproach. Gauthier argues that people should do what is morally rightout of cooperation and agreement. According to Gauthier, it would becheap and easier for people in a society to agree and cooperate indoing what is moral and what is right (Morris, 2014). It is clearfrom the readings that Gauthier believes that the process ofselecting and maintaining agencies such as the government to maintainlaw and order would be extremely expensive. Gauthier states that theproblem sets in due to the fact that the self interests ofindividuals often conflict with morals and ethical actions. Accordingto Gauthier, people can voluntarily cooperate and do what is moral aslong as other people are doing the same. It is in Gauthier’s beliefthat people can do what is moral as part of their self interest. Ifsuch happens, people would not need any enforcement agency to enforcethe various rules in a social contract.
The two theories similar in that they call for morals and ethicalbehavior in the society. Additionally, it is clear that the twosocial conflict theories are calling for all the people to be treatedthe same way. For instance, in John’s theory, people are supposedto come up with regulations and ethical laws that are of equaltreatment to everybody (Morris, 2014). On the other hand, Gauthier’stheory states that people should all observe the laid down ethicalrules without supervision from any enforcement agency. However, thetwo theories are different in some aspects. To start with, the theoryby Gauthier insists that there should not be any enforcement agencyto enforce the various ethical laws put forward. This is differentfrom John’s theory which is not opposed to the existence of anenforcement agency such as a government. Whereas the John’s theoryof social conflict calls for equality for all the people, Gauthier’stheory calls for cooperation and observance of the ethical rules byall the people.
The first theory by John is better than the other theory byGauthier. It is evident that the John’s theory allows all membersof the society to be treated equal. Additionally, there is areinforcing government or agency that ensures that the laid downethical rules are strictly followed (Morris, 2014). It is also clearthat it can be extremely difficult to tell people to follow certainrules in a cooperative manner without a higher power that iscontrolling them. The argument by Gauthier that people canvoluntarily do what is moral as long as other people are doing thesame is flawed. Research has indicated that people follow the law inavoidance of the punishment that would result from breaking suchlaws.
It is also clear that John’s theory is better than Gauthier’stheory in that the former ensures that the ethical laws developedwhich are not favorable to any group. The laws are developed byoutsiders who have no interest in the affairs of the society inquestion. This ensures that the laws developed are favorable topeople of all the classes (Morris, 2014). On the other hand, theGauthier’s theory fails to clearly explain how the individual’spersonal interests can turn to be moral and ethical yet he statesthat the two conflict with each other.
Learning about ethics and morals is an interesting affair asa whole. However, there were some areas that were more interesting tolearn than others. For instance, the most interesting thing to studywas the contribution and the role of women in ethics. It is clearfrom the reading that women are valued and that their opinions shouldbe put into consideration. Whereas the voice of women was beingignore time back, it is evident that women now have value and theircontributions are put into consideration. It was also interesting tonote that ethics cannot be branded in a different name or a femininename. This is the same case with males where there are no ethics withmasculine names. If such would happen, there would be questions overthe originality of such names. Ethics should be neutral and shouldserve every person.
Morris, C. W. (2014). The social contract theorists: Criticalessays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Lanham, Md:Rowman & Littlefield.