The social contract is no contract at all. What is called the social contract is more of a ultimatum that comes onto individuals through coercement,fear,and blackmail by either government forces or the will of collective society from which government forces reside from.
When I observe postmodern society I seen no social contracts of any kind but instead all I see is social interaction revolving around demands and ultimatums.
Such contracts are that which people are forced or pressured into because of ruling legislation therefore my definition of ultimatum still fits I believe.
Social Contract Theory is a joke, true. It is too simple and inaccurate, and no one sits down and thinks about whether they should sign some document saying they agree and sanction everything “society” does, or even most of what it does.
Yet, there still is an implicit social contract, because the agreement between individual and society still exists in an implied way. “contract” is not a very good word to use, but if you get past that, you can see how we do give agreement and sanction our society to one degree or another by remaining in it. Not that this really means anything, or excludes the fact that we may hate society and all of its aspects, or may work towards the change or destruction of the society we happen to be in.
We do not choose where we are born. We just end up being born in a certain place, almost always with a society in place around us already. Yes in a certain way, we do choose to remain here, because we could leave if we really wanted, and yes because of this fact we could be said to be giving consent or agreement to this society itself; but that is not the entire story, of course. While an implicit contract does exist, enforced by society upon us whether we like it or not, Social Contract Theory itself is still an incorrect and inaccurate way to think about social dynamics.
I have not signed any Mayflower Compact, nor have I ever been asked to sign it.
I think that the social contract is implied only, because no one signs anything saying they will adhere to certain rules or expectations, or be compliant. It is implied because if you do not adhere to such things, there are consequences that follow for violating those rules. You do not explicitly agree to follow those rules, but you know that failure to follow them results in consequences to you. And certainly, because it is so vague and implied, it is changing all the time, and is never static or solid. Re-reading my other statement here, I do not see anywhere that I claim otherwise.
I have read Theory of Justice, and was not impressed. Trying to take complex social dynamics and the multitude of ever-changing sociological-historical factors and cramming them into a small set of “principles” such as Justice or Fairness or whatever is bound to fail. Reality does not conform to such nice tidy little boxes or labels.
Here’s my point. Social Contract Theory describes the minimal case for morality. It places the basis for a moral system in the hands of members - at least some members, of the group. While it allows for God-given rights, it does not require them. SCT precludes even a rational basis for morality - that is, it allows that the first principles guiding morality be other than rationally-derived principles.
It’s the worst system going, except for all the rest.
…and even (or especially) for Rawls, Social Contract Theory is a “thought experiment”, i.e. a way of bringing rational consideration to one’s conception of what it is one ought to feel are one’s obligations and duties in society. The primary emphasis in Rawls’ case is to provide grounds for considering the least advantaged, and I think he goes far in explicating a structure through which to do so. There are many limitations with him, of course, such as his stating that one does not have a fundamental right to leave one’s country (the basic structure of the contract)…
gee isn’t all of the above really something, especially when we consider that between two men of principles, who have principles, a simple handshake - which could also be seen as a “social contract” albeit not what you are talking of above, would be enough of a social contract to guarantee and to bind their word - sort of like a promissory note.
Actually that has a lot to do with it… it’s all dependent on what the principles are and how they were derived. If it’s a question of Prisoner’s Dilemma, then the principles are counter-social (at least in the sense of a broader civil society).
Faust, would you consider the early Rawls as much more amenable to anarchism (cf “Justice As Fairness” (the article(s)), and the imagined pre-political community at that point, as perhaps akin to an anarcho-syndicalist set-up)? I think Rawls started getting into trouble when he began limiting his concept to the nation-state, and removing it from purer thought-experimentation.
How much of society anymore today is contractual versus what isn’t?
Many like to say that the whole of society revolves around a binding social contract between it’s members but I don’t believe such a statement is completely honest infact I would say such sweeping generalizations are deceptive.
Most of what I observe personally when it comes to social interaction within postmodern society revolves around the prisoners dilemma which is why I said social interaction in postmodern industrial society is more of a imposed ultimatum than a contract.
I’m not saying mutual social contracts don’t exist but I do believe they are becoming more minimal with the way current society exists.
More and more when it concerns social interaction in postmodern industrial society I’m seeing imposed social ultimatums that individuals are more or less pressured under.
But what’s the alternative? We can’t go back to the farm life and suck on Betsy’s teat in between square dances, can we? And even that was an imposed social ultimatum. I think, rather, that we’re in the middle-times, where the construct of the nation-state is fading out and the template for the new order has yet to be clarified. In the meantime, there will be lots of social ultimatums, just as there will be lots of vacuums of any pre-conceived limitations at all (e.g. the present wild-west days of the Internet we are now riding in).
Speaking of the wild west, I just read the comparison recently that when Einstein was in the throws of mulling-out his postulations, Wyatt Earp was still a Sheriff.
If one rejects historicism one then comes to the understanding that history is without direction where existence is directionless.
There is no reason why we cannot go back toward the past in that there is no past, present, or future in that such definitions are merely illusional references to somthing that doesn’t exist where reality is a single stream unfiltered.
It’s already beginning to clarify itself with the last bit of globalization.
( One world government or a one world authority of an alliance of nations.)
Neat. Einstein’s relativity is mainly what I like of his writings.
Social Contract Theory is more a model to describe what happened “after the fact”. It doesn’t really describe what actually occurred. Let’s face it, I don’t walk around thinking I made a “deal” with my society. If my government treats me unfairly I don’t say the contract is breached and I go off on a murderous rampage. As an individual something stops me from doing that has nothing to do with a sense of obligation to my society. However, when you reflect back on what’s going on, many aspects of our moral conduct fits within the box, but much of it doesn’t. Moral conduct is a phenomenon, we look back and explain it, and it seems “Like” a contract. Social Contract Theory amounts to an analogy of what goes on in moral practice. Yes, there is a general shared sense that we “owe” something to our society in return for what it has given us. But there is also a compassionate component to morality, a sense of what’s right between individuals, and even between friends there is a higher responsibility deemed that has nothing to do with the social context. Social Contract Theory is an incomplete analogy.
Oughtist - To answer your question - yes and no. It’s clear that he is forming a basis for a system that speaks to late-20th cetury americans about late-20th century america. But he attempts to replace Natural Rights with his Original Position, which two ideas share this common attribute - they don’t exist in any particular time or in any real place. And the central points of justice as fairness are deliberately considered in the absence of a state.
Except that you can’t really do this. He ephasises social institutions, but these are organs of a state in some form. And his second principle (had to look it up, yes) is difficult to conceive of outside some kind of state.
I think it could be fairly stated that it was his later iteration of Justice as Fairness that seemed more critical of government.
Rasava -
That’s not really true. Certainly Rousseau and Rawls were not describing what is as much as what should be.
I think it must, if only to criticise it. Social Contract Theory is not anything at all in and of itself. The term describes a family of theories. Some writers are better at this than others. I think you have to read those writers, and not just the Wikipedia article.
But you might. That wouldn’t be antithetical to a social contract.
But you’re not completing the analogy. Social contracts can be thought of as operating in concentric circles around the individual. Or the family. Or the village. Or the state. But once you get to “My friend and I”, you’re in a social context.
But morality is designed specifically as a counterbalance to short-term selfish gain. Just because we have to think about it doesn’t mean it’s against our “nature”.
