From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Social Contract nonsense (was Re: [ACLU] Reproductive Freedom)
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 12:08:39 EST

Follow-ups directed to alt.society.civil-liberty, only.


In article <1992Dec18.175758.11568@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>As long as the end is _collectively_ approved, why should it matter whether a 
>given individual dissents, John, as long as he or she is free to leave the 
>collective anytime they want, thereby forsaking all of the benefits, as well 
>as the liabilities, of that particular Social Contract?

BZZZT!  Wrong!  You presume that everybody implicitly consents to a "Social
Contract."  This was bad philosphy in Socrates' time, and it's *worse*
philosphy now.  (And your arrogant assertion, in a subsequent post, that only
"pure anarchists" or those who have no knowledge of "Social Philosophy" think
otherwise says nothing to change that fact.)

Why is it bad philosphy?  Simple.  How can you say that by failing to take
a positive action--which includes deserting one's property and family--one
implicitly consents to a "Social Contract?"  It's ludicrous.

Why is it worse today than in Socrates' time.  At least during Socrates
time, one *could* actually move someplace where he would no longer be
under the rule of any government.  Today this is essentially impossible.
So, though your argument is cozy, there is *no* way to escape *somebody's*
"Social Contract."


What's more, whether they be schooled in "Social Philosophy" or not, most
of the people in the world seem to base their social beliefs upon some idea
of natural law (morality) rather than upon any "Social Contract."

When a murderer is sentenced to prison, do you really believe that people
feel that society has the right to do so because the murderer has "accepted"
a "Social Contract?"  I'd say that, overwhelmingly, they feel that society has
the right to do so simply because they believe that murder is a violation of
natural law.  They could care less what the murderer consents to, or not.

(And, the fact that the vast majority of Americans subscribe to religions
based upon natural law--not upon a "Social Contract"--demonstrates that in
the US, for example, it is very unlikely that my interpretation is
incorrect.)

And this interpretation is *proven* by the various actions of countries with
respect to *other* countries.  Why did the US, for example, wage War against
Iraq in order to free Kuwait?  (And for a moment, let us ignore the real
reasons, and go upon the stated purpose of "freeing Kuwait.")  It certainly
was not because of a "Social Contract" since social contract theory would
indicate that there *isn't* any "Social Contract" between the US and Saddam
Hussein or Iraq.


So, the fact of the matter is that the "Social Contract" is a complete
fallacy.  It is based upon the rather strange idea that one can create
a "contract," offer an individual no choice but to "participate," and then
claim that the individual "consents" on the basis of their participation.


That's what I'd call bad philosophy.


-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame,alt.fan.kevin-darcy