The Social Contract and Moral Obligations

I've wanted to debate him for awhile, and so I am looking forward to this opportunity. At this time, I will now present my case. CON's CASEOverviewThe resolution can be negated in 1 of 2 ways: (1) to deny that the social contract imputes "moral" obligations to governments rather than "political" ones, and (2) to argue that the social contract theory is flawed and an invalid source of moral authority. Notice, it isn't my job to provide a competing source for a government's moral authority; I just need to rebut that the social contract theory is such a source. Contention One: The Social Contract Is Seriously FlawedP1. There is no True Consent in the Social Contract (a) Consent cannot be Implied. "Central to the Social Contract idea is the claim that we owe allegiance to the law because the benefits we have derived have been voluntarily accepted. This is one place where our autonomy is supposed to come in. That is, having benefited from the Rule of Law when it was possible to leave, I have in a sense consented to it. " [1] David Hume in his essay 'Of the Original Contract' points out how ridiculous the basic premise of the Social Contract is: 'Can we seriously say that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country-when he knows no foreign language. .. and lives from day to day by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master, though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean and perish the moment he leaves her. " [2]What this excerpt demonstrates is the simple fact that implied consent is no consent at all. Any social contract that rests its laurels on the idea that acquiescence can be conveyed through non-departure is necessary absurd. In fact, there are very many reasons that might render a person unable to leave a given jurisdiction. Perhaps I live in Niger, in the deserts. Leaving my oasis-blessed village would be unbelievably foolhardy, as it would deprive me of a reliable source of water, it would risk me getting lost in the Sahara, it would put me in the path of potential criminals who use the remoteness of the desert as a hideout, etc. In essence, any attempt to leave would put me at too high a risk. Consequently, we cannot conclude that I have consented to my government or its social contract despite the fact that I choose to remain. (b) Implied Consent Justifies Immoral Governments. "The contract argument set forth in the case of refusal to emigrate proves too much. .. It can be maintained that anyone living under the control of a regime receives something that the regime might call benefits. Ultimately, thus, the benefits argument reduces to the claim that all under the control of state should obey the state. " [3]Suppose that I live in Soviet Russia. I receive public benefits, such as public transport, which I make use of. One might argue that reception of these benefits or refusal to leave the country constitutes implied consent. At that point, one is saying that the Soviet government was legitimate, because, by receiving goods from the authorities, the population has given the government its tacit consent. Clearly, implied consent could justify any kind of regime because, as long as people live there and use public services, they can be reasonably construed as consenting to their situation under a social contract paradigm. (c) The Social Contract Justifies Exploitation, Murder, and a Parade of Horribles. "The moral terms require the dominant group to evaluate the lives of their group more highly than those of the subordinated. .. and the epistemological terms require the members of the dominant group to see themselves as intellectually superior to the dominated. The social contract then can be seen as a justification by the parties to the contract of their interaction, and of their exploitation of those who are not parties to the contract, but only if the fundamental division of in-group and out-group is accepted. .. Pateman extends her critique of the ideology of contract to the case of colonial appropriation of native peoples' lands with what she calls the 'settler contract. '" [7] Frankly, any number of past atrocities could be justified as moral using the logic of the social contract. The needs of citizens must be prioritized, and moral side constraints lose importance in their light. (d) Consent is not Hereditary. "First of all, the state created via the social contract monopolizes protective services and thus constrains the property rights of those of succeeding generations who were not involved with the negotiations of the original contract. Secondly, in the social contract approach, the state would transfer the power to tax to the majority, which would bind subsequent generations to that power. " [4] The problem with binding succeeding generations to the contract is simple: my forefathers cannot reasonable consent for me. As an individual, with my own free will and my own autonomy, only I can consent for myself. We could point to a reasonable facsimile of a social contract, i. e. the U. S. Constitution, and apply this argument quite effectively. Why should the decrees of people living in 1787 and 1788 apply to me, many generations removed? The document specifically talks about securing liberties for "posterity" and makes plans for a system of government designed to last years. [5] Given this data, it appears that the Constitution garners its validity not just from my supposed implied consent, but also from the idea that its law is binding to future generations, which is a very non-consensual notion. P2. The Feminist Critique (a) Economic Man. "Virginia Held. .. argues that social contract theory implicitly relies on a conception of the person that can be best described as 'economic man. ' 'Economic man' is concerned first and foremost to maximize his own, individually considered interests, and he enters into contracts as a means by which to achieve this end. 'Economic man', however, fails to represent all persons in all times and places. In particular, it fails to adequately represent children and those who provide them with the care they require, who have historically been women. The model of 'economic man' cannot, therefore, fairly claim to be a general representation of all persons. Similarly, Annette Baier argues that Gauthier’s conception of the liberal individual who enters into the social contract as a means by which to maximize his own individually considered interests is gendered in that it does not take seriously the position of either children or the women. " [6] (b) Dependence in Relationships. "Baier argues that Gauthier, who conceives of affective bonds between persons as non-essential and voluntary, therefore fails to represent the fullness of human psychology and motivations. She argues that this therefore leads to a crucial flaw in social contract theory. Liberal moral theory is in fact parasitic upon the very relations between persons from which it seeks to liberate us. While Gauthier argues that we are freer the more that we can see affective relations as voluntary, we must nonetheless, in the first place, be in such relationships (e. g. , the mother-child relationship) in order to develop the very capacities and qualities lauded by liberal theory. Certain kinds of relationships of dependence, in other words, are necessary in the first place if we are to become the very kinds of persons who are capable of entering into contracts and agreements. .. She therefore suggests that we consider other models of human relationships when looking for insight into morality. In particular, she offers up the paradigm of the mother-child relationship. .. Such a model is more likely to match up with many of the moral experiences of most people, especially women. " [6]If we give this argument credence, it will have significant ramifications on the social contract. The social contract posits that it has obligations to those who "agree" to enter into the contract. It is, as the name suggests, a voluntary proposition. Yet, if we entertain the idea that the government-citizen relationship should be one that is based on a contractual arrangement is called into question. Perhaps a relationship built on caring for dependents or those more closely related to us, purely on those bases, would be preferable. Contention Two: The Social Contract Cannot Convey Moral ObligationsAwareness is a prerequisite to having obligations. While it may be fair to say that the government has a function or functions, it would not be correct to assert that it has obligations. I could not oblige a rock to do anything, as a rock is inanimate. How can an entity that lacks any connations at all bear responsibilities? But, I can accurately assign functions to rocks. By fashioning them into points, I may give them the function of a spearhead. The government is like a rock, it is inanimate, and thus can only have functions, not obligations. To quote the earlier definition: "the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions. " This definition very clearly defines a government as a mere thing, not a thinking agent. It is a tool, not an actor. Only actors can have obligations, not tools. SOURCES1 - . https://books.google.com...2 - . http://www.constitution.org...3 - . https://mises.org...4 - . http://www.iep.utm.edu...5 - . http://www.archives.gov...6 - . http://www.iep.utm.edu...7 - . http://plato.stanford.edu...Thanks again to Kasmic. It should be a stimulating discourse :) I turn the floor over to him now. ..