4 ms·

This problem comes up in contractarian ethics: our laws are justified by a social contract between individuals and the state, but none of us actually signed the

by adrusi 8y ago

This problem comes up in contractarian ethics: our laws are justified by a social contract between individuals and the state, but none of us actually signed the contract execept (liberally interpreted) for immigrants. Why should we accept being bound by these laws? Similarly to how an individual has no choice of being born into a society, a child has no choice of being born into a family. One common response to the problem in contractarian ethics is that we implicitly sign the social contract by accepting it's benefits. We benefit from not living amidst anarchic chaos, and we benefit from the services provided by the state (roads, schools, etc.) That might be an unsatisfying response (we wouldn't accept that kind of reasoning in tort law) but we're going to need to have some kind of response or else we'll just be left with anarchy and everyone will be worse off. You can sheild your child from the fact that bring alive entails responsibilities outside yourself, but you'll inevitably be creating a leaky abstraction because reality just doesn't work that way.

mmirate3 8y ago
Actually, you've just outlined one of the good arguments against social contract theory.
- adrusi 8y ago
  I don't know why you're getting down votes, because yes, I did. But my point isn't that contractarian ethics is how we should make decisions, it's that it's what's driving the grandparent's moral intuition — they even refer to a contract — and that what they're pointing out is actually a classic problem with that sort of ethical reasoning.
  - mmirate3 8y ago
    Apologies; I appear to have made my point in an overly indirect manner. Luckily your response here allows me to clarify myself concisely: Have you ever considered that that sort of ethical reasoning might in fact be pointing out a classic problem with society as we know it? (Insofar as, the legitimacy of today's centralized authorities rests upon social-contract theory, which as you have clearly shown, is baseless.)
somebodythere 8y ago
> anarchy and everyone will be worse off. Bold assertion.
waterhouse 8y ago
> we implicitly sign the social contract by accepting it's benefits. We benefit from not living amidst anarchic chaos, and we benefit from the services provided by the state (roads, schools, etc.) However, if, say, I said, "I don't like the schools and I homeschool my kids, I think the military is 5x larger than it should be, I'm willing to pay for roads, I think drugs and prostitution should not be crimes and the police should be cut by 30%... and therefore my tax bill should be only x% of what it is", I don't actually have a choice in what "benefits" I "accept". (Suppose, for sake of argument, that I'd voted in every way I could for candidates who would change policies towards what I wanted, and it didn't work.) One response to that is "go live somewhere else", but (a) there may not be a somewhere else with a government that doesn't force people to pay for things I found objectionable, and (b) if I own my house and the land it's on, why should I have to move? There are people who will demand that you pay for certain services, and back this demand up with the threat of force, which will ultimately be enforced if needed. There's a little bit you can do to try to influence how it turns out, but for the average citizen, it's next to nothing. Some people are perfectly happy with every aspect of this. Others are less happy, but see no point in complaining. A few do complain, and the results they get probably inform the previous group's perception. > b[e]ing alive entails responsibilities outside yourself I don't like the use of the word "responsibility" here. The term "responsibility" implies, to me at least, that you're doing something wrong if you don't live up to your responsibility. If you agreed voluntarily to a contract or an informal promise, failing to fulfill it does seem wrong. Disliking the terms of an alleged "social contract" that other people unilaterally impose upon you and choosing to disobey them is risky, but it is not wrong. I guess there's one way in which it can be considered a contract. The true terms of the contract are, "Obey whatever rules we come up with (which change with every ballot measure and every legislature meeting) and we won't inflict our arbitrarily bad punishments upon you." But this would probably be considered under duress. Edit: Seems Lysander Spooner said the same stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Voluntarism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Voluntarism And it says: "[in the 1600s] more importance was attached to consideration, meaning a mutual exchange of benefits necessary to the formation of a valid contract, and most contracts had implicit terms that arose from the nature of the contractual relationship rather than from the choices made by the parties. Accordingly, it has been argued that social contract theory is more consistent with the contract law of the time of Hobbes and Locke than with the contract law of our time, and that certain features in the social contract which seem anomalous to us, such as the belief that we are bound by a contract formulated by our distant ancestors, would not have seemed as strange to Hobbes' contemporaries as they do to us."
SerLava 8y ago
I think you can still understand that in the framework of a social contract. Sure you can go break the social contract, but if you choose to do so, we happen to have manhunters that attack and capture you (police). If you don't want to be part of the social contract, they can be unbound from it too.
thelasthuman 8y ago
Yes, the only way to "win" against this social contract forced upon you is to end it with you, and have no children. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is why educated people in developed countries have far fewer children. On top of reproductive agency, a better educated populace sees the writing on the wall far more clearly regarding their own social contract than one who is more focused on survival. You cannot change the hierarchical nature of human civilization, you have no say in your social contract, you will always be forced to work to earn money on a planet you never wanted to be born on. Also we live in a unique moment in history in regards to automation. While we may never live to see a truly autonomous society, our children will have a much larger chance. This is the social contract while the people at the top of society need something from us. (our labor) Do you really expect better treatment when we are (in their words) useless eaters? This is the best we've ever been statistically and people still live in horrible conditions across the world (even here in the USA), I would highly encourage people to opt out if they can.

by adrusi 8y ago

mmirate3 8y ago

Actually, you've just outlined one of the good arguments against social contract theory.

adrusi 8y ago
I don't know why you're getting down votes, because yes, I did. But my point isn't that contractarian ethics is how we should make decisions, it's that it's what's driving the grandparent's moral intuition — they even refer to a contract — and that what they're pointing out is actually a classic problem with that sort of ethical reasoning.
- mmirate3 8y ago
  Apologies; I appear to have made my point in an overly indirect manner. Luckily your response here allows me to clarify myself concisely: Have you ever considered that that sort of ethical reasoning might in fact be pointing out a classic problem with society as we know it? (Insofar as, the legitimacy of today's centralized authorities rests upon social-contract theory, which as you have clearly shown, is baseless.)

somebodythere 8y ago

> anarchy and everyone will be worse off. Bold assertion.

waterhouse 8y ago

> we implicitly sign the social contract by accepting it's benefits. We benefit from not living amidst anarchic chaos, and we benefit from the services provided by the state (roads, schools, etc.) However, if, say, I said, "I don't like the schools and I homeschool my kids, I think the military is 5x larger than it should be, I'm willing to pay for roads, I think drugs and prostitution should not be crimes and the police should be cut by 30%... and therefore my tax bill should be only x% of what it is", I don't actually have a choice in what "benefits" I "accept". (Suppose, for sake of argument, that I'd voted in every way I could for candidates who would change policies towards what I wanted, and it didn't work.) One response to that is "go live somewhere else", but (a) there may not be a somewhere else with a government that doesn't force people to pay for things I found objectionable, and (b) if I own my house and the land it's on, why should I have to move? There are people who will demand that you pay for certain services, and back this demand up with the threat of force, which will ultimately be enforced if needed. There's a little bit you can do to try to influence how it turns out, but for the average citizen, it's next to nothing. Some people are perfectly happy with every aspect of this. Others are less happy, but see no point in complaining. A few do complain, and the results they get probably inform the previous group's perception. > b[e]ing alive entails responsibilities outside yourself I don't like the use of the word "responsibility" here. The term "responsibility" implies, to me at least, that you're doing something wrong if you don't live up to your responsibility. If you agreed voluntarily to a contract or an informal promise, failing to fulfill it does seem wrong. Disliking the terms of an alleged "social contract" that other people unilaterally impose upon you and choosing to disobey them is risky, but it is not wrong. I guess there's one way in which it can be considered a contract. The true terms of the contract are, "Obey whatever rules we come up with (which change with every ballot measure and every legislature meeting) and we won't inflict our arbitrarily bad punishments upon you." But this would probably be considered under duress. Edit: Seems Lysander Spooner said the same stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Voluntarism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Voluntarism And it says: "[in the 1600s] more importance was attached to consideration, meaning a mutual exchange of benefits necessary to the formation of a valid contract, and most contracts had implicit terms that arose from the nature of the contractual relationship rather than from the choices made by the parties. Accordingly, it has been argued that social contract theory is more consistent with the contract law of the time of Hobbes and Locke than with the contract law of our time, and that certain features in the social contract which seem anomalous to us, such as the belief that we are bound by a contract formulated by our distant ancestors, would not have seemed as strange to Hobbes' contemporaries as they do to us."

SerLava 8y ago

I think you can still understand that in the framework of a social contract. Sure you can go break the social contract, but if you choose to do so, we happen to have manhunters that attack and capture you (police). If you don't want to be part of the social contract, they can be unbound from it too.

thelasthuman 8y ago

Yes, the only way to "win" against this social contract forced upon you is to end it with you, and have no children. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is why educated people in developed countries have far fewer children. On top of reproductive agency, a better educated populace sees the writing on the wall far more clearly regarding their own social contract than one who is more focused on survival. You cannot change the hierarchical nature of human civilization, you have no say in your social contract, you will always be forced to work to earn money on a planet you never wanted to be born on. Also we live in a unique moment in history in regards to automation. While we may never live to see a truly autonomous society, our children will have a much larger chance. This is the social contract while the people at the top of society need something from us. (our labor) Do you really expect better treatment when we are (in their words) useless eaters? This is the best we've ever been statistically and people still live in horrible conditions across the world (even here in the USA), I would highly encourage people to opt out if they can.