Week 6, Reading Section 6.1: Introduction Introduction As you will recall, from Week 3, the Plagues of the Fourteenth Century had disastrous effects on Europe. Many of today’s developments can be traced as having their root, causative factors in that Century. There were two others: the Protestant Reformation of the Sixteenth Century and successive Religious Wars, culminating in the Thirty Years War, 1618-48 and the English Civil War, 1642-48. In the wake of these events, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, respectively, Philosophers began to question all the presuppositions of Life. You are about to encounter another such development, which grew from this questioning: Social Contract Theory. Resource: Social Contract Theory [PDF] Up to the times of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, few, if anyone, in Europe, questioned the origins of Society and the State. The prevailing theory was Aristotle’s, as it had been imported into Western Christianity, by Thomas Aquinas. This theory said that human beings were “Social Animals.” The underlying interpretation of that position is that human society is a given of human existence and has always been that way. Week 6, Reading Section 6.2: Thomas Hobbes and John Locke II. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke The questions that Social Contract theorists, starting with Thomas Hobbes and continuing with John Locke, asked were: What were the origins of Society? What makes a “good” form of society? How does the State (meaning “government”) come into being?  Both Hobbes and Locke started from what they called the “State of Nature,” a wilderness,  where all “men” (Hobbes speaks only of “men”; one wonders from whence he believed “men” came, without mention of women;) begin, having absolute rights and equality. Put another way, if one “man” encountered another, and a conflict arose about a resource, like food, came about, the right to kill would, regrettably, still be available to both. Fortunately, it occurred to our species that that was a lousy way to run a planet. Thus, the idea of “forming society” by “social contracts” occurred to someone. That was the moment that human beings left “the State of Nature,” and founded Society (a/k/a “Civil Society”). A. Hobbes Resource: End-of-Life Decisions [PDF] Hobbes, being a friend and confidant of the Stuart Family, was a monarchist, and presupposed the existence of a “Sovereign.” In The Leviathan, Hobbes suggested that, in forming the Civil Society, people had to surrender their rights, in exchange for two things: (1) protection from each other, and (2) protection from outside threats. The question was: to what or whom did they have to surrender those rights? Hobbes’ answer was “the Sovereign,” a/k/a “the Leviathan,” an allusion to a mythical sea creature. What Hobbes meant was that “the Sovereign,” was the English Monarchy. The Stuart Family at the time, sat on the unified Throne of England, Wales, and Scotland at the time. Resource: Thomas Hobbes: Moral and Political .

1. Week 6, Reading Section 6.1: Introduction
Introduction
As you will recall, from Week 3, the Plagues of the Fourteenth
Century had disastrous effects on Europe. Many of today’s
developments can be traced as having their root, causative
factors in that Century. There were two others: the Protestant
Reformation of the Sixteenth Century and successive Religious
Wars, culminating in the Thirty Years War, 1618-48 and the
English Civil War, 1642-48. In the wake of these events, the
Renaissance and the Enlightenment, respectively, Philosophers
began to question all the presuppositions of Life.
You are about to encounter another such development, which
grew from this questioning: Social Contract Theory.
Resource: Social Contract Theory [PDF]
Up to the times of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,
few, if anyone, in Europe, questioned the origins of Society and
the State. The prevailing theory was Aristotle’s, as it had been
imported into Western Christianity, by Thomas Aquinas. This
theory said that human beings were “Social Animals.” The
underlying interpretation of that position is that human society
is a given of human existence and has always been that way.
Week 6, Reading Section 6.2: Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
II. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
The questions that Social Contract theorists, starting with
Thomas Hobbes and continuing with John Locke, asked were:
What were the origins of Society? What makes a “good” form of
society? How does the State (meaning “government”) come into
being?
Both Hobbes and Locke started from what they called the
“State of Nature,” a wilderness, where all “men” (Hobbes
speaks only of “men”; one wonders from whence he believed
“men” came, without mention of women;) begin, having
absolute rights and equality. Put another way, if one “man”
encountered another, and a conflict arose about a resource, like

2. food, came about, the right to kill would, regrettably, still be
available to both. Fortunately, it occurred to our species that
that was a lousy way to run a planet. Thus, the idea of “forming
society” by “social contracts” occurred to someone. That was
the moment that human beings left “the State of Nature,” and
founded Society (a/k/a “Civil Society”).
A. Hobbes
Resource: End-of-Life Decisions [PDF]
Hobbes, being a friend and confidant of the Stuart Family, was
a monarchist, and presupposed the existence of a “Sovereign.”
In The Leviathan, Hobbes suggested that, in forming the Civil
Society, people had to surrender their rights, in exchange for
two things: (1) protection from each other, and (2) protection
from outside threats. The question was: to what or whom did
they have to surrender those rights? Hobbes’ answer was “the
Sovereign,” a/k/a “the Leviathan,” an allusion to a mythical sea
creature. What Hobbes meant was that “the Sovereign,” was the
English Monarchy. The Stuart Family at the time, sat on the
unified Throne of England, Wales, and Scotland at the time.
Resource: Thomas Hobbes: Moral and Political Philosophy
Resource: Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy
Hobbes also argued, rather unpersuasively, that, since the
Sovereign had all the power and could not be held to obey a
Social Contract, the people should still cede all their rights to
the Sovereign. What he was saying was, “Trust me,” or, more
aptly, “Trust the Sovereign, which you cannot hold
accountable.” Sound silly?
Resource: Thomas Hobbes: Social Contract
B. Locke
John Locke thought so. After Hobbes’ death, Locke, in his Two
Treatises on Government coined the concepts of the “consent of
the governed,” of government as agent/servant of society, and
of representative government, such as parliamentary or
legislative supremacy, rather than monarchical reign. The
English colonists, including Tom Paine, in the Late-
18th Century drew on Locke’s writings, for the justification of

3. their break with the Mother Country, between 1775-83.
Resource: John Locke: Political Philosophy
Resource: John Locke
Week 6, Reading Section 6.3: Later Theorists: John Rawls and
Martha Nussbaum
III. Later Theorists: John Rawls and Martha Nussbaum
In the 20th Century, writers such as John Rawls, Sandra
Harding, and Martha Nussbaum, breathed new life into Social
Contract Theory. Rawls revisited the origins of society with his
concepts and thought-experiment of the Veil of Ignorance and
the Original Position. Harding removed the inherent sexist
presuppositions of Rawls’ theories, and Nussbaum focused on
the idea of “capabilities” as ways to enforce and protect rights.
Resource: Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract
A key thing to remember is that Social Contract Morality
systems are not based on Cultural Relativism. Social Contract
theorists are Natural Rights thinkers, who have believed in
Universal moral and politico-social rights and values. While
social agreement on norms is important, those norms also have
to be “good” and “right” ones. The premise on which the Social
Contract theorists have operated, over the centuries after
Hobbes, is that, if given their own “enlightened self-interest,”
as well as a sense of compassion, human beings, following their
Reason, will pick those “good” and “right” values. There have
been nasty exceptions, of course, in History, but, fortunately,
for our species those are still seen as exceptions.
Those are the theories and concepts, underlying Social Contract.
In the following section, we shall briefly address this week’s
substantive issues, World Health and the Allocation of Health
Care.
Week 6, Reading Section 6.4: World Health and the Allocation
of Health Care
IV. World Health and the Allocation of Health Care
A. World Health
As the Planet “shrinks,” due to mass communications,
transportation systems, and global/international trade and socio-

4. economics, the interdependence of the human populations,
divided by national loyalties and geography, becomes more
pronounced. Along with that interdependence comes the
necessities of addressing on supra-national levels, issues of
world health, including spread of diseases and overall health
care provision. These are not the only relevant issues, but they
are two of the more important ones. Thus, allocation of health
care is no longer only a national concern, but also an
international and global one.
Who cares about health inequalities? Cross-country evidence
from the World Health Survey. King, Nicholas B.; Harper, Sam;
Young, Meredith E.; Health Policy and Planning, Vol 28(5),
Aug, 2013 pp. 558-571. Publisher: US National Library of
Medicine.
Global Aging and the Allocation of Health Care Across the Life
Span. (UMUC Library One Search) Daniels, Norman; American
Journal of Bioethics, Aug2013; 13(8): 1-2. 2p. ISSN: 1526-5161
PMID: 23862589, Database: CINAHL Complete
Commentary: Globalization, Health Sector Reform, and the
Human Right to Health: Implications for Future Health
Policy. (UMUC Library One Search) Schuftan, Claudio;
International Journal of Health Services, Jan2015; 45(1): 187-
193. 7p. ISSN: 0020-7314, Database: CINAHL
B. Allocation of Health Care
Over the past eighty years, ever since the advent of the New
Deal, the questions of Allocation of Health Care and the
responsibilities of the Health Care Professions have existed in
public policy forums. It was during the New Deal that activists,
such as Eleanor Roosevelt campaigned for provision of Health
Care to Children and Adults. Medicare and Medicaid were
Federal programs, created in the 1960s, for the Aged and for
poor people, against considerable opposition. Some of the
States have also created programs for both groups, over the
decades.
Proposals for national health care for all Americans, were put
forth on the Federal level, by the Administration of Bill

5. Clinton. But those proposals were defeated those interests,
which benefited from the existing system of private provision
of health care to selected portions of the working public.
Those proposals were raised once more in 2009 at the Federal
level, and legislation was passed in 2010, requiring all
Americans to have health insurance. The Supreme Court has
subsequently upheld the general outline of that program. That
program has been called “Obamacare,” but the irony of that title
is that the various forms of proposals have existed, since, first,
the Progressive Era and, then, FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt, and the
New Deal.
The ethical/moral questions, regarding Allocation and Provision
of Health Care, involve, among others, the following: (1) should
all people be provided Health Care? (2) How can such programs
be paid for? (3) Should there be a so-called “One-Payer”
system, administered by government? (4) How can “the market”
be used to keep Health Care affordable for most Americans, i.e.,
the middle and working classes, who cannot afford it, but aren’t
“poor enough” to qualify for Medicaid or similar State
programs. These are some, but not all, the issues within this
field, as you will see in the Weekly Discussion.
Resource: Justice, Inequality, and Health
Resource: Public Health Ethics