The Social Contract and Moral Obligations

OVERVIEWCon says that I have argued that moral obligations are a function of the closeness of relationships. Con does not refute this rather he just concludes that such an observation is “non-topical.” Apparently con has misunderstood the link. I will present it as clearly as I can. It has been established in my arguments that a relationship increases ones moral obligations. I demonstrated this by observing the moral obligation inherent in familial relationships. Again this is not refuted by con. Understanding that a relationship causes a moral duty is essential as one main function of contracts is to establish and define the relationship of those involved. Then, and only then such a concept is established illustrate the obligations entailed. The social contract does just that. It establishes the relationship and from the relationships, the duties of the parties involved. Thus the Social Contract, (as any contract) creates an obligation. Specifically between the citizens and their government. This squarely rests this debate on whether such an obligation is moral, or as stated in my opening argument “Does a contract create a moral obligation?” Due to this observation I mentioned that for con to successfully win this debate he must argue that a contract does not increase the moral obligation. No such argument were made in his opening arguements. Rather, he has missed the mark arguing that the Social Contract is “flawed.” This does not satisfy what he must do in this debate. His rebuttals do however partially address this topic.ClarificationCon attempt to show that some of his contentions are not kritiks, yet one certainly is. Con says the following argument is fair game:“whether governments can have moral obligations” Yet to argue that governments cannot have a moral obligation undermines the assumption of the resolution.Consider the resolution. The question is if a social contract creates a “superior” moral obligation. Superior is defined as “higher in station, rank, degree, importance, etc”(1) This implies that other non-social contract governments have moral obligations but that the due to the lack of a social contract such obligations are “lower in station, rank, degree, or importance.” Thus the only reasonable non kritik and in keeping with the rules arguments that my opponent can make is to question if a social contract increases the moral obligation or has no effect. To argue that governments cannot have moral obligations is a kritik by definition. ObligationsCon claims that I made a bare assertion when I concluded that a contract by its very nature creates an increased obligation. All one needs to do to see the claim is true is to look up the word contract in a dictionary. “an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.” (2) If you agree to do something it is then your duty to do it. That is synonymous with being obliged to do it. Thus it is clear that a contract inherently creates an increased obligation. Con than asks a two questions to which I will answer.“Why do legal obligations necessarily translate to moral obligations?” As con has defined moral, it is clear that fulfilling a legal obligation would be “conforming to a standard of right behavior.”“Why is the social contract legitimately constituted?” Cross apply my response to con’s premise 1(d) Not only is the social contract legitimately constituted. It seems to be the only such way such a contract could be legitimate. Obligations are Weighted1: I have already addressed the first concern raised here. A contract defines the relationship from which the obligations are derived from. 2. Con says that I just assume “that agreements equate to moral obligations.” Per con’s definition of moral that assumption is justified. To this con attempts a hell marry on the topic proposing the hypothetical “Supposed I was a hitman and I signed a contract to kill someone. Am I morally bound to follow that contract?” Sure you do but not morally bound enough to override the moral weight to not murder. Surely my opponent would agree that on balance agreeing to contract makes keeping that contract “conforming to a standard of right behavior.” Surely being a man of your word is agreeably moral. 3. Con’s assertion that I contradict myself is nonsense. Sure there is an underpinned morality that must be respected between governments and all people, however the topic we are debating is if that obligation is greater to citizens than non, which it clearly is. 4. Con strawman’s my position to be that relationships are arbitrary. This is far from the point made as to seem an intentional strawman. My statement that you cannot choose where you are born is to imply that your familial relationship is inherent, or natural. In this case I am arguing that through that familial contract your consent is given on your behalf to the social contract. 5. Con seems to misunderstand my point here. It is not that some obligations are chosen and others are not, rather that the social contract is an extension of the natural and familial contract. The only natural contact is that of the family. All others are entered into unnaturally that is to say by choice. Again, for minors this choice is made on their behalf through their natural family contract which becomes null upon there adulthood in which case if they choose to leave the social contract society… so be it. ScarcityCon says I “never actually explains WHY it is the case that one should prioritize one's sibling. He just presents his example and assumes that it proves his point. Examples should be used to supplement reasoned argumentation, not to replace it.” I did not perceive the need to show the natural obligation that occurs in the family as it seems empirically evident. Does my opponent feel that a mother has no moral obligation to her newborn child, or that a father has no obligation to his offspring? If so, this is in direct conflict with his definition of moral. Society accepts familial obligations as “conforming to the right standard of behavior.” Con again straw mans claiming my conclusion to be “I am morally bound to help my sibling over the other person.” Rather my conclusion is the the moral binding is “superior” to that to the other person. SUMMARY (1)http://dictionary.reference.com...(2)http://dictionary.reference.com...