Social Contract Theory

I always thought the idea of the social contract had more to do with politeness and propriety, even ethics and morality at times, more than... well, anything government related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contractualism

If we elect a group of people, and by 'we' I mean all the people who vote, to represent us in the form of a government, so that they have power over us in some aspects of life, while affording us protection in most other aspects of life, I would consider that a contract. We put you in power, and you protect us and do as we ask. That's the idea. That's not quite the practice anymore.

And by saying 'we', I realize that I'm inviting the response of 'Well I didn't choose this'. No, you didn't. But by living in a country where the citizens have continually chosen this system, it becomes applied to you. Good and bad. You may not be able to leave, for whatever reason, but by staying, you are in fact benefiting from the system in some ways. For example: If you have a problem, and someone attacks you, regardless of your personal opinion of the police, you can call them. They will (or are supposed to) protect you. If another country attacks us, the government responds, to protect the citizens.

Of course, if the government is not doing what the people ask of it, it is the right of the people to resist. That is what you are doing Giggan. You see things that you don't like, and you resist. That action in itself tells me that you have seen a break in the 'social contract'. Now, whether or not you actually believe in a contract, you know that something is wrong, and so strive to change it.

So yeah, I think a 'social contract' exists. The first two paragraphs apply when the system is working how it should. That's now how it functions today in all cases, but it does in most. So, I think the contract is intact still, but that being said, it doesn't have to be whole nation v. government. I believe it can be person/group v. government, or group v. Gov. + group, etc. For me the contract is just the idea of an agreement between the people and their government.

For me it's pretty basic. The U.S. Constitution is the contract, citizenship binds one to the contract. Therefore any stipulation in the Constitution which applies to citizens is a contractual obligation of the citizens. Likewise, any stipulation which applies to the government is a contractual obligation on its part. The U.S. system makes social contract pretty basic as our system is designed around it.

Without a written contract such as a constitution a social contract still exists. I believe that one has ethical duties, either prima facie or Kantian, and these duties should propel one to be of some benefit for society. Likewise these duties apply to those who run government. The fulfillment of one's ethical duties is the same as the fulfillment of the social contract. In a way, social contract is a culmination of individual ethical obligations. If private sector citizens don't treat one another as a mere means to an end while treating others as they wish to be treated, then they will be law abiding under a just system. If the government follows these same principles they will act in way which is to the benefit of the citizens. Thus the obligations of social contract are ethical obligations which either directly relate to one's role as a citizen or governor.

I think it's being overstated. The "social contract" is that unspoken agreement that we (all people) shall live side-by-side without causing undue harm to each other. More of a Natural Law thing than a man-made one. Constitutions and such are an attempt at formalizing a set of laws often reflecting that unspoken agreement.

See also Hobbes, Locke, Rouseau, Hume, and Kant, et al.

Great thread, Gigg. More coffee is required for this than I am currently containing.

I don't want to play the "people suck" card again, so I'll say this. If you want someone to work for you, and someone wants to work for you, then you two can reach a form of agreement. In theory, if you want a society to work, you have to make a few sacrifices along with everyone else. If you don't, then cooperation is effectively impossible.

But to explain such a condition, a sort of prelapsarian, Edenic society is often envisioned, a situation to which we can never return for whatever reason. Having been banished from paradise, we need to make rules so that we can approximate the good life again, or at least the functional life.

The problem I have with the idea of a social contract is that if you refuse to live by it, then you're most likely going to be branded an outlaw. It's a forced choice, and therefore not a choice at all. "Either give up the freedom to kill, to rape and to steal, or you will be punished." Like almost any social situation, there isn't really a choice. You do what you think others are doing, and they do what they think you're doing. We're always in deference to some Other.

In the prelapsarian fantasy, you'd be able to walk around doing what you wanted without having to worry about doing bad things. That's why it's a fantasy. The social contract is one way of dealing with this, but it's not the only way. Not all societies have been obsessed with equality and justice. Because I usually say that I believe people are a bunch of suckers, I could put down the amount of criminal activity in the world to a failure to observe the code of social decency. But that's bullshit.

In a "globalized world" (what a weird way of putting it), there are winners and losers, and while the winners can afford to be righteous about things like equality and social contracts, the losers are busy trying to survive, sometimes in ways we, the winners, could consider criminal. Since entering this globalization phase, we've come to expect the rest of the world to agree to OUR social contract, as if it's the only good one. So we patronizingly try to correct undemocratic nations, form charities to help the "helpless" African communities, and celebrate our system of universal emancipation. The social contract is now the Western social contract. Anything else is barbaric.

Come on, peepz, contribute.

Where did this thread come from!?

You bring up an interesting point Xec. I sympathize with a lot of criminals, especially if there is no economic recourse for them. But if the government is failing it's part of the contract, then theoretically they're not really criminals. Outlaws, perhaps, but they certainly could be morally justified in their actions. My favorite example of a moral man is Jean Valjean (Les Miserables), who stole to feed himself. Les Miserables is a great example of social contract at work. Inspector Javert misinterprets the contract to be an obligation to follow the law of the state but Valjean demonstrates how obligations arise which are sometimes illegal. So basically being an outlaw doesn't necessarily mean that one is failing their end of the social contract if 1) no contract exits (anarchy) or 2) the government has failed to uphold their part of the deal (tyranny, negligent economic policies, ect.) The nice part about democracy is that it gives us a simply solution: kick out those who breach the contract and replace them. In other systems you have to go kill the leader.

One real interesting movie which kind of relates to this is Hero, with Jet Li. He goes to kill a tyrant but the tyrant convinces him that the assassination will only make the people suffer more. I interpreted it as a defense of the Chinese government. It's a pretty utilitarian perspective.

Indeed based upon my rieligious views i feel that we do indeed have an obligation to eachother to be the best person you can be to each other , the belief if wither not human beings are fundamentally good is one ive held on to despite recent evidence . But on the whole humanity 2/3 of us have done better than most. Besides one cant expect perfection from anyone but god . However it is ultimately upon the individual alone to determine if its valid or not but one must act upon ones morals , as far as being logical of course since it is on the better half as mankind to survive as a species .

The social contract theory is pretty silly. Just because I live in an area you claim doesn't mean you get to control me. If I claimed my neighborhood as my own territory, and went around offering people a choice between (say) a new Volvo and a BMW, had to choose one, and if they didn't choose they'd get the majority choice - and tried to force them to foot the bill - I'd be laughed at.
Or if some dudes steal your car, vote (including you in the vote) on what to do with it, you lose the vote so they sell it and give you a bike in return. Is that just? It's up to you to decide, but I think it's retarded.

Saving this for posterity.

My apologies for the delay. I'm enjoying my youth and such, and will return.

I was listening to a debate between Jan Narveson and Gary Francione about animal rights, and the concept of the social contract came up.

Francione: "Jan’s theory, I’m familiar with Jan’s general political philosophy and his libertarianism and his notion of contractualism as a basis for morality. I reject that. I do not believe that that’s a good argument, I think that this notion that human beings make a contract or there’s anything like a social contract, I think that’s completely fiction. I think these are devices which philosophers use and don’t have any – I mean there’s no social contract, I didn’t make a contract, you didn’t make a contract, there ain’t no social contract." And went on to say, "But the notion that the members of the moral community are those that are capable of making contracts or who are moral agents is just a notion that – it’s a fundamental premise I don’t accept and I don’t think can be justified and I don’t think is reflected in the conventional moral thinking of most people."

In case you want to listen to the context upon which this was said, you can listen to the full debate here (about 16 mintues long),

http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/thestatewerein/oth...

Transcript here,
http://www.gary-francione.com/francione_narveson.pdf