I've been arguing with a fellow over at another forum over social contract theory. It started with his original thread that promoted the idea video games should promote the (supposed) moral obligation to obey the laws of governments (including things like going 1 over the speed limit and burning CDs), effectively on a utilitarian/rule of law basis.
After a few replies, I pointed out (in reply to his social contract argument), that there are criminal organisations like the Somali warlord and North Korean communist governments, and questioned if there are supposed moral obligation to obey their "laws". I also stated my view that the social contract was nonsense, because even democratic government's gained their territory by conquest, and queried what the "social contract" was of places like North Korea, Cuba, the USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the like, essentially questioning him as to whether he meant democratic governments (and then pointing out, before he answered, that Nazi Germany was democratic for a few years).
He answered that democracy is based on mutual consent of the people and that hence the citizens of nondemocratic governments have no obligation to uphold their contract. I questioned why, if the citizens of democracies could leave, that things like Christian Exodus or the Free State Project spring up, or Muslims fighting for Sharia courts in the UK, or Stormfronters who hate the US gov not seceding.
He then basically admitted it had never existed, and I questioned what the point was of making a game promoting obedience to a nonexistant government. He replied to my Stormfront question by stating that the government's purpose was agreement among people and protection of everyone, and that wrinkles are ironed out democratically (which I felt to be avoiding the question), and repeated his earlier utilitarian arg.
I queried what the difference was between his hypothetical social contract and the ones in say, NZ or the US, as well as wondering why it was a "social" contract as opposed to any other (since, I've noticed "social" seems to mean "Would get anybody but a government thrown in jail if they tried it"). He then admitted it was an impossible utopia dependant upon unaimous agreement, and replied it's social due to everyone agreeing with it (he, ironically, sourced the SC in a previous sentence from Hobbes).
I agreed it was utopian (using an example of a hypothetical situation where I tried to get everyone in my local city to sign a simple contract and probably still gettng disagreements for various reasons, the most fundamental being human nature), and brought it to it's logical conclusion, that of preventing secession violently, which Hobbes also envisioned. I stated this was fundamentally indistinguisable from his definition of a dictatorship, except there is more than one dictator and the dictators and subjects occasionally change positions.
He then brought out the old utilitarian-rule-of-law argument again, which I stated I basically agreed with, save that I didn't think the more destructive option was necessarily unethical (drawing comparison to some people view's on the Dresden bombing). He then also stated social contract theory was self defeating, but stated that by trying to live up to it, we can still get some of the benefits (perhaps a Churchillian argument).
Here is the thread in question if you are interested. I'm not soliciting anyone to register there and argue, just looking for an assessment, as I'm a relatively new debator.
If he's talking the utalitarian approach, you simply need to explain or demonstrate how strickly enforcing such laws would cause more harm than good.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
social contract theory would be valid if it was actually contractual. If people actually consented to being governed under a democratically elected government than that could be consistent with voluntarism and other virtues imo every man wants to live up to.
at least he was honest and pulled out a utilitarian argument for democratic government, some (almost entirely leftists) will actually try to argue that ''the social contract" is logically valid (if you don't like it, you are free to leave), of course the social contract has been debunked since Hume.
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Praetyre:After a few replies, I pointed out (in reply to his social contract argument), that there are criminal organisations like the Somali warlord and North Korean communist governments, and questioned if there are supposed moral obligation to obey their "laws". I also stated my view that the social contract was nonsense, because even democratic government's gained their territory by conquest, and queried what the "social contract" was of places like North Korea, Cuba, the USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the like, essentially questioning him as to whether he meant democratic governments (and then pointing out, before he answered, that Nazi Germany was democratic for a few years). He answered that democracy is based on mutual consent of the people
He answered that democracy is based on mutual consent of the people