Is the Social Contract Dead?

stoblerone

I thought I'd throw it out there.

Any ideas?

Joe1919

The are still supporters of contractualism. E.g Gregory Kavka, David Gauthier, John Rawls, Jurgen Habermas (based on concensus).

Almost all Political philosophy books run through this theory as it was very important in terms of 'justification of the state'. Most people who support this theory today do not take Hobbes idea (the life of man as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short etc. ) as a necessary historical fact, but rather as a thought experiment.

Rousseau's 'general will', although considered crude, was nevertheless influental and has similaraties to the idea of 'collective intentionality' etc. that is used to show that there is a certain 'herd instinct' in people.

John Locke's version was particularly important in terms of influencing the constitution of the USA and in this sense, this theory still lives on.
Historically, we can see this if we read the US declaration of Independence
'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...'
and of course in the preamble of the US constitution.

Personally, I think that contractualism is a viable moral theory in terms of being one motivational factor in our actions. However,it is not the only factor in our morality.

The main reason I pay my TV licence is to appease the 'Leviathan' who comes after me with nasty letters and threats of fines if I don't.

Offalycool

The social contract may well be dead. Traditionally, the contract was understood as an entitlement for people to live together as citizens derived from natural right. Natural rights have proved to be a troublesome concept, as proving people have natural rights is imposable, and justifying them from first principles has left open the objection to agreed first principles.

As Joe1919 pointed out, modern contractualism has tended to base itself on abstract justifications, such as Rawls ‘veil of ignorance’, or Habarmas’ discourse ethics. However, People object to these abstract ideas on the grounds that we cannot remove ourselves from our embedded self, as Rawls would have it, and we cannot always agree on something after discourse, as Habermas would have it.

The big problem with contractualism is its exclusionist element. Supposing we could actually agree on a contract, it’s all very well if everybody was included in a fair contract, but by virtue of the membership dimension of contractualism, it includes some, and excludes others. Consequently, many people are bound by laws without a satisfactory contract, or, people exist between states, without political rights.

Another factor is the decline of the nation state, the sidelining of citizens in the decision making of the state. This may happen for a number of reasons, the corruption of the democratic process by capitalism, and due to the large number of citizens, they are reduced to units in an impersonal system, thereby, reducing politics to calculative utilitarianism. Due to sheer numbers in modern states, the direct democratic process is be removed from people, and replaced with indirect, representative democracy.

Some authors, such as Giorgio Agamben have written about the stateless individual in a ‘state of exception’. He observes that as the nation state declines, citizens become aware that they are not defined by their nationality, but share the life experience with others. They realise that they are essentially the same as every other, but unique in that they are the only one of their kind (human). The state, in fear of its redundancy, turns on its citizens to prolong itself. Agamben illustrates his view with reference to Tiananmen Square, arguing that the protesters could never be appeased by the Chinese government, and the type of democracy desired by the protesters could never be instigated by any government. It was a conflict between people and the institution of government.

Nevertheless, a state that provides a political basis for people to live full and meaningful lives is desirable in my opinion. I cannot see a utopian stateless society functioning in a meaningful way for people. Anarchy, I believe, will result in factions, that grow and consume weaker factions to the point where we are back to citizenship. The big problem with modern conceptions of citizenship is its insistence on the belief that the infallible truth of liberty is non coercion and constraint by others. This is, by definition, imposable for any state. The existence of the state is interference, and it cannot hope to protect such a definition of liberty.

However, this conception of liberty is flawed. How can we be free in any practical sense if we cannot interfere with others? Negative freedom could only be some abstract idea that is completely useless to people living in the real world. If we are to realise freedom, we must accept that we can only be free with others, and freedom is to be found in being responsible for others. As Levinas says, the rights of man are the rights of other men.

Joe1919

The big problem with contractualism is its exclusionist element. Supposing we could actually agree on a contract, it’s all very well if everybody was included in a fair contract, but by virtue of the membership dimension of contractualism, it includes some, and excludes others. Consequently, many people are bound by laws without a satisfactory contract, or, people exist between states, without political rights.'

Of course, this is what happened with the black slaves in America (they were excluded) and it shows that there was a certain amount of absurdity when it came to interpreting to the American decleration of independence. (that all men are created equal)

Offalycool

Very true, and it can also be said of the Native American, who arguably, is more excluded today than any other minority in the US.

Joe1919

Despite its limitations, the Social Contract theory seems to endure in terms of a 'start point' in political or social philosophy.

Many philosophers feel that the Social Contract thesis at least needs to be answered and often use this as a comparison to their own position.
(e.g. Hume and Kant both wrote about its deficiency's. Kant was in partial agreement with it).

A typical modern example of this is John Searle's essay 'Social Ontology and Political Power' (2003), in which the author states that what's wrong with the social contract tradition is 'not that it gives wrong answers to the questions it asks, but rather it seems to me it does not always ask the questions that need to be asked in the first place.'(p.1) (Searle explanation of 'social ontology' has some contractual elements and Searle accepts that all laws are backed up by 'the threat of physical force.)(p.18)
www.law.berkeley.edu/cenpro/kadish/searle.pdf

So I reckon that Social Contract theory will always survive as an introduction to political philosophy.....to discuss its limitations....where it may be right and where it may be wrong.....as a sort of model or measure, something to kick start the argument in terms of an attempt to justify the state and society and also as a bottom line argument for morality. i.e. I am good because I fear punishment from society (that will gang up on me) if I misbehave.

simplistic

Its not dead but the poor oul fellow is dying. As long as we have a state we will have social contracts.

Offalycool wrote: »

Nevertheless, a state that provides a political basis for people to live full and meaningful lives is desirable in my opinion. I cannot see a utopian stateless society functioning in a meaningful way for people. Anarchy, I believe, will result in factions, that grow and consume weaker factions to the point where we are back to citizenship. The big problem with modern conceptions of citizenship is its insistence on the belief that the infallible truth of liberty is non coercion and constraint by others. This is, by definition, imposable for any state. The existence of the state is interference, and it cannot hope to protect such a definition of liberty.

quote]

Why is it your belief that anarchy will grow back to government?

Have a listen to this guys rational proof that anarchy can work, its his first podcast called the statless society.

http://www.freedomainradio.com

Joe1919

simplistic wrote: »

Its not dead but the poor oul fellow is dying. As long as we have a state we will have social contracts.

Offalycool wrote: »

Nevertheless, a state that provides a political basis for people to live full and meaningful lives is desirable in my opinion. I cannot see a utopian stateless society functioning in a meaningful way for people. Anarchy, I believe, will result in factions, that grow and consume weaker factions to the point where we are back to citizenship. The big problem with modern conceptions of citizenship is its insistence on the belief that the infallible truth of liberty is non coercion and constraint by others. This is, by definition, imposable for any state. The existence of the state is interference, and it cannot hope to protect such a definition of liberty.

quote]

Why is it your belief that anarchy will grow back to government?

Have a listen to this guys rational proof that anarchy can work, its his first podcast called the statless society.

http://www.freedomainradio.com

I think that anarchy or a stateless society may have worked in the past when Hobbs was writing his Levithan (1640s). Ireland at that time had a population of less than a million and it may have been possible to live a peasents lifesyle of relative independency and self sufficency on a few acres of land.
I dont think that is possible anymore with the huge populations in Ireland and the world and hence, the state can justify itself because we have such a huge dependency on the state (and foreign trade and high tech agriculture) for everything today.

simplistic

Joe1919 wrote: »

simplistic wrote: »

Its not dead but the poor oul fellow is dying. As long as we have a state we will have social contracts.



I think that anarchy or a stateless society may have worked in the past when Hobbs was writing his Levithan (1640s). Ireland at that time had a population of less than a million and it may have been possible to live a peasents lifesyle of relative independency and self sufficency on a few acres of land.
I dont think that is possible anymore with the huge populations in Ireland and the world and hence, the state can justify itself because we have such a huge dependency on the state (and foreign trade and high tech agriculture) for everything today.

How can the initiation of force and violence ie taxation ever be justified?

You obiviously havent listened to the pod cast it has nothing to do with living like a peasant.

Offalycool

simplistic wrote: »

Why is it your belief that anarchy will grow back to government?

Have a listen to this guys rational proof that anarchy can work, its his first podcast called the statless society.

http://www.freedomainradio.com

Its happened already, throughout the world. People have existed before the state, but everywhere states have come about. They have mutated from tribes into kingdoms, and in turn, into states. During colonial times, if no state existed prior to the colony, when the colonists withdrew, nationalism took its place. Sometimes, I believe, humans give ourselves to much credit for what we believe we control. we may be able to land on the moon with complex machines and calculations, but we cannot just change our behaviour. That can only be tackled by manipulating circumstances in imprecise ways, and I suppose we will never be fully understood objectively. How can we be objective by studying ourselves in the mirror?

BTW.. don't have much time for freedomain radio.

Joe1919

simplistic wrote: »

Joe1919 wrote: »

How can the initiation of force and violence ie taxation ever be justified?

You obiviously havent listened to the pod cast it has nothing to do with living like a peasant.

I downloaded the book 'Everyday Anarchy' and have skimmed through it. (The pod cast is annoyingly too slow.)
One point that the author misses out is that famine and disease and poverty is also a violence and that living in a peaceful society free from 'state violence' is no consolations if we are all going to starve to death.

Hence my remark that a stateless society may have been possible in the peasant lifestyle of the past when populations were very low. We complain nowadays about recessions etc but there was a recession in medieval times where 25% of the population starved to death.
Its hard to see what kind of economic model would work without taxes.
I'm sure if anarchy is a viable proposal, it will eventually be tried somewhere and it will be possible to see it working in action.

Personally, I am suspicious of American Liberalism, as it is often sponsored by people who want to avoid paying taxes to pay for social services etc.

simplistic

Joe1919 wrote: »

simplistic wrote: »

I downloaded the book 'Everyday Anarchy' and have skimmed through it. (The pod cast is annoyingly too slow.)
One point that the author misses out is that famine and disease and poverty is also a violence and that living in a peaceful society free from 'state violence' is no consolations if we are all going to starve to death.



Hence my remark that a stateless society may have been possible in the peasant lifestyle of the past when populations were very low. We complain nowadays about recessions etc but there was a recession in medieval times where 25% of the population starved to death.
Its hard to see what kind of economic model would work without taxes.
I'm sure if anarchy is a viable proposal, it will eventually be tried somewhere and it will be possible to see it working in action.

Personally, I am suspicious of American Liberalism, as it is often sponsored by people who want to avoid paying taxes to pay for social services etc.

violence n. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.

Can you run me through you logic of how came to the conclusion that poverty and famine will arise with the absence of the state? And also how that same matter cant arise in a statist society?

Is it wrong to defend yourself or run from violence?

Is it right or wrong to break into your neighbours house steal there jewlery, pawn it and give the money to charity?

Joe1919

simplistic wrote: »

Joe1919 wrote: »

violence n. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.

Can you run me through you logic of how came to the conclusion that poverty and famine will arise with the absence of the state? And also how that same matter cant arise in a statist society?

Is it wrong to defend yourself or run from violence?

Is it right or wrong to break into your neighbours house steal there jewlery, pawn it and give the money to charity?

Please excuse my semantics but my point is that seeing your children die of starvation is no better than seeing your children being battered to death, especially if this starvation was caused by irresponsible political experiments.

Any radical change to the state runs the risk of poverty and hardship if badly mishandled. I am sceptical of political and economic theorists that claim that they can a priori predict the result of these changes.
This is why I suggested in a earlier post that 'if anarchy is a viable proposal, it will eventually be tried somewhere and it will be possible to see it working in action.' I would definitely prefer if this country (that was to experiment with anarchism) was not anywhere near Ireland but I would keep an open and interested mind in my viewing from a distance.
We can judge then. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

The matter of 'defend yourself' of course was important to Hobbes and is a major reason he gives for the social contract.
Interestingly, this is the reason (defence) classically given by historians as to why England unified around 800 and Bismark used the threats of French attack to get the southern Germanic states to unify.

The question of 'breaking into your neighbours house' etc. reminds me of Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky's crime and punishment. Its a classical utilitarian paradox. (Robert Nozick try to deal with this under 'side restraints' )
I personally think it wrong and illegal, unless of course one is a baliff and your neighbour is a tax defaulter.
Anyhow, don't beat you neighbour over the head with an axe if you are going to try this (as Raskolnikov did).

simplistic

Joe1919 wrote: »

simplistic wrote: »

The question of 'breaking into your neighbours house' etc. reminds me of Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky's crime and punishment. Its a classical utilitarian paradox. (Robert Nozick try to deal with this under 'side restraints' )
I personally think it wrong and illegal, unless of course one is a baliff and your neighbour is a tax defaulter.
Anyhow, don't beat you neighbour over the head with an axe if you are going to try this (as Raskolnikov did).

So I assume we can agree that the initiation of violence is wrong and has a net negative for society as a whole.

So just by putting on a uniform and calling yourself a baliff and breaking into someone home who has decided to stop paying taxes doesnt make it right.

Gravity applys to the whole world even if some people say it doesnt apply in a small area.

Joe1919

simplistic wrote: »

So I assume we can agree that the initiation of violence is wrong and has a net negative for society as a whole.

So just by putting on a uniform and calling yourself a baliff and breaking into someone home who has decided to stop paying taxes doesnt make it right.

Gravity applys to the whole world even if some people say it doesnt apply in a small area.

I do not agree. There are instances where the initiation of violence may be right under social contract theory e.g. Punishment for transgressions against the law. e.g. execution of a criminal, the jailing of a tax dodger etc.

Hobbes states this in Leviathan
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-e.html#CHAPTERXXVIII

Rousseau states '"It is expedient for the State that you should die," he ought to die, because it is only on that condition that he has been living in security up to the present, and because his life is no longer a mere bounty of nature, but a gift made conditionally by the State.'
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_02.htm#003

Its important to understand that under social contract theory and in a 'state of nature', there are basically only a few principles.
1. Might is right.
2. A person will do what they have to do to preserve themselves.
3. The strong may be mightier than the weak but the weak can form a pact/covenant/social contract and gang up on an aggressor or tyrant and kill him.
4. In forming the covenant, the individual gives up some of his personal liberty., but this is better than living in a 'state of nature'.
5. Social contract theorist usually argue that an imperfect state is better than no state at all.

Social contract is not really too concerned about ideas of right or wrong but more about public utility and general will.
For example, Plato in the 'Republic' defended the use of 'Noble Lies' and the use of myths for the overall public good. (utility).

Its important to understand that Social Contract theory is especially popular after/during historical periods of state breakdown. e.g. Plato - Greek war, Hobbes -English civil war, Locke-Glorious revolution, Rousseau-French Revolution.
Of course, this theory is often despised, as it can lead to the conclusion that 'The ends justify the means' and of course most modern and western societies would hope to have gone beyond this.
However, this is contingent and not necessary. If there was a bad breakdown of law of order in the future, most states would have no problem with the temporary introduction of Marshall law and the withholding of normal civil rights.

I am also saying that the social contract theory and many of its ideas it uses in justifying the state have been historically very important and many of the issues it bring up are still controversial even today. e.g. The right to use violence in a revolt, the Lifeboat argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeboat_ethics

I am not here trying to justify every state or instance of violence.
I am saying that in order to criticize social contract theory, you need to at least understand what it's about.

Joycey

Joe1919 wrote: »

4. In forming the convenient, the individual gives up some of his personal liberty., but this is better than living in a 'state of nature'.

Convenient or covenant?

Joe1919

Joycey wrote: »

Convenient or covenant?

Please excuse my spelling. ( and the limits of spell-checkers).The word should be covenant , similar to pact or contract as I have already suggested.

Joycey

Joe1919 wrote: »

Please excuse my spelling. ( and the limits of spell-checkers).The word should be covenant , similar to pact or contract as I have already suggested.

Ah ok, was wondering there for a minute