This House Believes that the Social Contract is a viable political theory

Thanks to CON for this. It should be interesting as always... There are three basic problems with CON's argument. The first is that he's under the impression that political theory could be accurate or inaccurate -it can't, because social contract theory (hence forward referred to as SCT), as a political theory, is a normative theory, not an empirical one. The second is his assumption that even if social contract theory could be accurate or inaccurate, that inaccuracy is sufficient to render SCT not viable as a political theory. The third is that his argument doesn't actually even speak to SCT's viability as a social contract theory, but instead posits three clever but insufficient normative arguments against SCT which do not render SCT not viable as a political theory. Let's notice CON's absence of a framework for what makes a political theory viable. The impact is simple: he doesn't give me a way to know what "makes" a political theory viable. So, I'll offer my own, from Princeton: "Political theory is the study of the concepts and principles that people use to describe, explain, and evaluate political events and institutions. Traditionally, the discipline of political theory has approached this study from two different perspectives: the history of political thought, and contemporary political philosophy." (1) While political theory can build on empirics, it's not necessarily based on empirics -but what 'should' have happened for things to get the way they are. (2) That doesn't mean that political theory has to describe, with perfect accuracy, what happened -but rather to normatively account for how or why political events and institutions should have developed, how they presently develop or how they might develop in the future. Political theory, then, is epistemologically not much different from a well thought out opinion. Insofar as it occupies the intellectual terrain of 'opinion' (and not fact) we can't say that it's accurate or inaccurate. But, we also don't expect that of any individual political theory -meaning that we can't expect it of SCT, because SCT is not empirical theory. Said another way, this is the stuff of philosophy, not hard science. For example, SCT doesn't work quite the same way as, for example, evolution. It's not based on evidence but contemplation. It's not based on empirics, but reflection on the conventions and institutions that govern our lives. SCT is just one of many accounts of how the process of structuring society works. But to move forward in this debate, I've got to know what makes a political theory viable. So, let's define "viable." Oxford tells us that to be viable is to be "capable of working successfully" or "feasible." Referring earlier to our understanding of what political theory is, we can deduce a standard for any political theory's viability and conclude that a political theory is viable -which is to say it 'works' as a political theory- if it accounts for the "concepts and principles that people use to describe, explain, and evaluate political events and institutions." And SCT does that, because SCT "addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual" by positing "that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights." (4) Though certainly a simplified explanation, it demonstrates that SCT meets the standard for what makes a political theory viable. I hope to explain in more detail in subsequent rounds... 1. https://www.princeton.edu... 2. http://en.wikibooks.org... 3. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...