Posts
Friday, January 19, 2007
Morality - The Social Contract
I thought this was a rather interesting video clip. I am not going to do anything so big as to tackle this guy's original question. What I do want to do is to talk a little about his idea of the social contract and why it cannot work. If you are really interested in the Social Contract and what it was actually all about you can read a little more about it there or here.
However, for the most part I do feel that this guy has done a pretty good job in rendering the modern conception of what the Social Contract is all about. People get together to survive and are obliged to form certain codes of behavior so that they stay together without killing one another. These codes of behavior become standardized and are adopted into religion and state laws to keep us working together. I have a couple major objections to this view.
First objection: It is assumed that this social contract is somehow binding. This means that the unspoken contract that exists between people is empowered to punish violators. Yet who decides what was going to be in the social contract? I know that I am not the one deciding! Why should I follow the social contract, which I had no hand in creating, when it does not suit me? The social contract tells me that I should go without rather than stealing from my neighbor because it is better for everybody else that I do so, but what consolation is that to me? You can even make the argument that it will be better for me in the long run, but what if I die tomorrow? To look at this in a different way: The social contract assumes that I am going to be primarily motivated by intelligent self interest. This is what led us to form the social contract in the first place. However, my intelligent self interest would lead me to cheat the system every time that I thought I could get away with it because what I have now is certain but what I may have in the future is tenuous.
Second objection: The social contract is not just. The social contract is something that changes and evolves to meet the changing needs of the people. As the social contract changes things that were previously considered wrong may very well be considered right. How can you justly punish someone today for something that you may laud them for tomorrow?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 Discussion Points:
Bingo, Matt!
The social contract works great for lemmings and fire ants. They still believe in evolutionary psychology. People, however, have the power to make selfish choices, which can contradict the well-being of the species.
Spot on, Matt!
Hey, I hear Osama Bin Laden is looking for more recruits. Perhaps you should steal enough money from under your neighbor's bed for a ticket to Pakistan & go join his cause!
I'm sure Osama believes in the social contract. His recruits place their person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will. Any individual who refuses to obey the general will is forced to do so.
Way to go guys. I can't have a blog for two months before you guys to talking about wanted terrorists. I am sure that my blog is now under surveillance via supercomputer. You know that they can pull my library records now and THAT would be enough to get me in trouble!
I think this guy's full of it. He seems to be a little bit confused; he's saying that morality is basically your attempt to get something for yourself by helping others. I don't think it has anything to do with that - morality is about doing what is right, not what will ultimately be most beneficial to you. There is a distinction.
We do not have a true social contract. If we did, there would be no need for police, and there would be no riots when the police go on strike.
You do indeed have a say in what goes into the social contract, though -- you do this by voting on election day, by challenging unjust laws, etc.
I can't agree that the social contract is unjust simply because it evolves -- this should make it MORE just, not less so. It means that standards can change as needs change. Our laws and societies change over the years, too.
I think that this says something about our laws as well. The real question is "Do you feel that these evolving laws and conceptions of morality are improvements?" If so, what standard are you using to determine improvement or progress? It can't simply be what WE think is right because we are in no better position than anyone else to make this sort of distinction.
Oddly enough, I am involved with the development of a new law right now. The process goes roughly like this:
1) Identify a problem.
2) Do research to find out how others are dealing with the problem through new laws. (Sometimes it's better to deal with the problem in other ways.)
3) Do research to find out how a similar law would work with existing laws.
4) Ask people if they think the new law is a good idea.
5) Write new law.
6) Get approval from elected representatives.
7) Start using new law.
This is also how you make changes to existing laws. Usually, it really is about what the people think is right, with the help of experts (for example, public health experts will help with the development of a Public Health Act). In other cases, written laws have to be changed because of judges' decisions.
I think Glen can explain this better -- maybe he will drop by.
Post a Comment