The Social Contract and Moral Obligations

Thank you BSH1 for the opportunity to debate you, it has been a pleasure. Con claims that I did not refute his statement that he can negate by either showing governments are not subject to moral obligations or that social contract theory is flawed. I have in fact refuted both claims. Last round I demonstrated that arguing that governments cannot be subject to moral obligations is a kritik of the resolution as the assumption and question of the debate lies on if the social contract creates “superior” moral obligation. This implies that Governments without the social contract have moral obligations, I am only arguing that they are inferior or in other words not as strong moral obligations. Thus as a kritik, it would be against the rules to argue in that matter and such arguments are necessarily dismissed. Con was free to argue that the social contract theory has flaws. This does not however lead to the conclusion that social contracts do not create an obligation. As I have argued that keeping obligations is “conforming to the standard of right behavior” it follows logically that the social contract does provide an increased moral obligation. Thus the resolution is affirmed. Cons argumentsC1. The Social Contract Is Seriously Flawed“P1. No True Consent”Con claims I dropped this argument which I clearly did not. Cross apply my response from round 2 P1 a. Interestingly enough Con then claims that rational adults cannot have their consent implied. However, I have shown that once an individual is able to give or withhold consent they have the ability to do so. Thus I have shown in this debate that rational adults do in fact give consent through the social contract. Or in Con’s words “once I am born and grown, my consent is, by right, my own. ” This is true and the social contract affirms and respects as much. “P2. The Feminist Critique”Con continues to widen the burden of proof I hold to ridiculous lengths. To accept his argument is to expect me to prove that social contracts create perfect governments. I have not ever made such a claim and responded that "My burden is not to show the morality or functionality of a social contact itself, but to argue that if there is a social contract is the moral obligation increased. " This is reasonable to affirm the resolution. I have done so. I conclude as I did previously Flawed or not, the social contract is a contract and functions as a contract. Remember I have shown that the function of a contract is to define the relationship and from that the obligations required. Contention Two: The Social Contract Cannot Convey Moral ObligationsAs Con sums this argument up he shows that I accepted a definition in round one that does not permit me to argue as I had previously. As unfortunate as that is it matters not as I have also shown that such an argument is a kritik and against con’s rules set in round one. Conclusion: Con has only thus argued that the social contract is not perfect, while possibly true it is not near enough as I have shown the contract to be legitimate. Even if you buy this argument it is not enough to negate the resolution. His only other contentions are kritiks and thus dismissible as a violation of rules. I have demonstrated that a contract defines the relationship and derives from them the obligations necessary. The Social contract does just that. The only question voters must ask is if keeping obligations is “conforming to the standard of right behavior. ” I have clearly shown it does, thus it follows by the definitions given by con in round one it is clearly affirmed that Due to the social contract, governments have moral obligations to their citizens which are superior to those it has towards non-citizens.