It is not enough to be told “be good” or simply to “obey” for cooperation must pay heed to mutual benefit and should one not receive mutual benefit, why should one act in a manner which is considered morally “right” upon suffering?
If one isn’t given a reasonable chance to survive all bets are off.
Let wolves be unleashed where primitive nature will sort out the rest.
Umm, good question. 
I would love to see the supporters of the mystical social contract answer the defining theme of this thread.
They won’t however.
We all have social obligations to some extent or another - don’t you?
the only social obligation is to exploit the workers…
-Imp
screw social contracts. the one i have with north america turned out to be worse than a plad suit wearing car salesmans wet dream
People are given a reasonable chance to survive. Just look at some of the shit that receives a welfare check. All you have to do is breed and not work.
I think that the wolves are the rich people and politicians. They steal the quality of life from those who refuse to work for it and leave them to suffer accordingly.
I’m obsolete or atleast that is what I am told. I am not worth the sweet air in which people breathe that surrounds me.
( I don’t believe a word of it.)
So to an extent I have no obligations. I am nothing in the market’s eyes.
I am just a defiant anachronistic deviant slowly on his descent where folks would just love to lock me up in a cage for all eternity somewhere for my sinful pride. ( Which they might just get their chance.)
Precisely.
But of course the government will not admit this otherwise it might hurt it’s moral persona in its great theactrical act.
In my definition of government it should be synonymous with theatrics.
Well with any luck Smears I’ll find a hot border mama and start popping out some kids. 
](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Ok, so no social obligations then! :-"
I guess if one has nothing to contribute to the state: one is viewed as obsolete?
It’s all very well saying this, but eventually the weak would rebel. The problem with power is that you can’t have it for ever. Isn’t the domination of the strong by the weak, as you seem to claim, evidence of their greater power?
To pick up on what humegotitright has suggested: why do you think we have “society” in the first place? A lone human is a puny thing. Teeth and fingernails are feeble weapons indeed in the armory of the animal kingdom. It is only through cooperation (and its central enabling mechanism, language) that humans climbed to the top of the food chain. We are much stronger collectively than we could ever be by ourselves. Consider the conversation we are having now. Would it be possible in a world of total personal autarky? Of course not. The invention of the computer, the development of electrical power grids, neither of these things happened without the cooperation of countless humans. Far from being mystical, i’d challenge you to name any society, ever, that did not have its share of written and unwritten rules. And in embracing the social contract what, exactly, what do we surrender? Cheers all
Precisely. I would go even further to state that classism is a extension of the state not nature.
Not really. The weak operate on myth, superstition and deception.
It is only a matter of time before those three things are revealed to the world where the once privileged entitlements or universal “rights” of the weak are stomped out of existence altogether.
Time unfortunately isn’t quick enough for some impatient individuals like myself.
You perpetuate the myth that there is some final grand destination of man much like all the humanists do in this day and age.
Collectively yes man can be strong but for you to say this is due to morals by themselves is ridiculous.
Morality is predation in disguise. Morality’s power can’t not exist without that of violence as several would be moral men in past history has proved.
Morality is the weak’s predation since they can’t grab anything by strength alone so instead they create symbols and abstracts to defend themselves.
The whole point of a successful religion like Catholicism is that morality is used to disguise nature, to keep the flock drugged and obedient, whilst securing vast riches which enable the Church fathers to live in relative luxury and power (even priests sexually abusing children doesn’t seem to dent their income).
They did a very successful job of destroying religions in the New World. These people are highly intelligent, manipulative and utterly ruthless.
I thought you’d admire them.
Sounds like your lifes fun. Good luck with that
Morality used today is the same thing. Morality today pretends to care about equality or universal rights when infact it is a tool used by the leisure class to have control over others.
Morality is nothing more than forceful control articulated in violence pretending to be benign against other types of violence. Nothing more.
It will be even more fun when I run out of corner to be backed up in. 
( Flips you off with the bird.)