Journal Entry - assigment - Assignment Example

HERE YOUR HERE HERE HERE Response to Video Though Thomas Hobbs’ believes that all humans are naturally selfish, the Golden Balls video clearly illustrates that some individuals in society respect ethical behavior and will abide by the social contract construction. When the decision arrived as to whether to select the Steal ball or the Split ball, the female contestant decided to forfeit the social contract which had been confirmed by both contestants. This contract was developed with a very strong emotional linkage that added more clout to the agreement.

The audience did not realize that the female contestant had no intention of abiding by the contract, using her emotional responses to deceive the male contestant, holding the belief that she had succeeded in convincing him of her sincerity. Contractarianism suggests that an individual will decide to act morally due to the potential ramifications of judgment from others in society for failing to abide by social contracts. The secondary motivation, under contractarianism, is making concessions with a moral code of action attached for the pursuit of self-interest.

In this case, the male contestant abides by contractarianism theory as he made it clear that he was consciously aware of the potential consequences from the judging audience for not abiding by the mutual split deal. The female contestant, also, was consciously aware of these judgments, but instead chose to fulfill her own self-interest rather than abide by the agreement. It had previously been my view that people are, in actuality, selfish individuals. The male contestant was a prime example of contractarianism, while the female contestant was willing to succumb to moral judgment and the stigma of immorality to pursue her maximum self-gain.

Though the female contestant supported Hobbs’ claim, she tended to refute the theory of contractarianism by not allowing the shame or disgrace that she would carry to be enough motivation to abide by the social contract with her opponent. By witnessing an individual willing to abide by the contract, it instilled a new sense of faith in the moral constructs of some in society and supports that notion that there are some who will act appropriately to avoid causing harm to others. The male contestant could have easily chosen the Steal ball as this would have maximized his own position if he had been convinced of the female contestant’s morality.

The male contestant believed that cooperation could be of benefit to both parties, therefore he showed legitimate concern at the moral level for the well-being of his opponent. The male contestant believed that moral justice by securing the needs of both contracted parties was morally preferable over attempting to achieve receipt of the entire jackpot. It proved that the influence of society for a contractarian, in the case of the male contestant, can definitely influence one’s decision to abide by a contract.

It would have been interesting to witness whether, in absence of the judging audience, whether the male contestant would have chosen the alternative strategy. I would rather have my initial view of all people being selfish refuted to keep my newfound faith in moral social contracts. Nothing of the final interviews influenced this newfound conviction in human morality, as the justification for why the female had chosen to break the social contract was simply self-serving and deceitful, attempting to side-step moral judgment.