Edited sentence: Again the pretense to innateness would be destroyed.Also the social contract theory fails in that every single person must agree to it.If even one person declined then there would be two systems of morality, theirs and everyone else's.If man, the subject of morality can establish moral rules, then there is no morality.If such were the case there would be no innate rules since they could change any rule at any time.It is as if the players in a football game had the power to change the rules.It is only where rules [of morality or any other kind of rules}  come from an outside source of authority that they can be defined as innate.Morality deals wiith what is innately right or wrong.Under a a social contract theory, if enough people agreed, even that which was previously seen as immoral would become moral, thus destroying all pretense that any alleged moral rules developed by such a social contract were innate.Unfortunately the attempt to counterargue by positing man as the moral lawgiver creates its own paradoxes