Social Contract: The Way to Go or a Product of the Times we Live in?

[Grandeza]

So Dre. kind of encouraged me to make this thread so I did. From what I've seen from lurking here, lots of people assume that the gold standard is, if it doesn't harm another, it's okay. This is often used as an argument for homosexuality. It appears Dre. is generally the one who pushes us to back up this assumption. So I have a quote from the Don't Ask Don't Tell thread which if you aren't aware has a lot of discussion going on. This is my response to Dre. where he asks for a justification of the Social Contract.

Having a moral system where only the actions that don't harm others are acceptable is probably the moral system that gives the most freedom. You might say, well wouldn't a system that gives complete freedom to do whatever you want, be an even more free system. The problem with this is that if everyone can do whatever, your rights can constantly be infringed upon(rather, what you think you deserve can be taken away since there are actually no "rights" in this scenario). Thus, you can potentially have lots of your freedom taken away. And of course if you make a stricter system you not only restrict people more, but you enforce your own morals on people. I would say that making the standard, whatever doesn't harm people, is the system that least enforces morals on others. If you make a totally free to do whatever system, people would constantly have other people enforcing their morals on you because they'd be allowed to. I don't think the Social Contract enforces morals on others at all. Everyone is free to do what they want with any consenting people they want, and it doesn't involve an unwilling third party. I fail to see what a better alternative could be. Therefore, I believe that Social Contract is in fact correct, which may or may not be a result of the times I live in. As a result, because homosexuality falls into this, I believe homosexuality is acceptable.

So I definitely don't want this to end up being a discussion about homosexuality. The question is what is the best moral standard to set. And is the social contract not the best, but merely a product of the times we live in like Dre. often says? And if so, what would a superior alternative be?

 

[ballin4life]

Social contracts are inherently enforcing morals on others. In fact, any standard of enforcing "rights" must necessarily enforce morals on others - after all people may disagree about what rights everyone should have.

But my problem with social contracts is that they are non-voluntary. I never voluntarily agreed to the contract, and it shouldn't matter if other people would voluntarily agree.

 

[El_LoVo]

The social contract is like if some stone age mofos scribbled on the walls that all women are slaves of men, then they each stamp their stone age signatures on it, and anyone in the future has to abide by the rules of a bunch of dead, dumb men.
The social contract is literally, fancy paper with rules on it. Some guys decided to team up and use it to tell everyone to follow the rules, while they themselves make up excuses for why only they are allowed to break those rules.

A system based on the idea, if it is good enough, it doesn't need enforcing, would be better.
The power of the social contract comes from the idea that force is a necessary part of a free society.The very idea that using force and violence will create freedom is absurd. It is like saying hitting your malfunctioning xbox will fix it. It might make it run, but the problem is still there, and next time hitting might not get it running again.

There will be no rules, just basic concepts. Don't hit, Don't steal, Don't do stuff you wouldn't want done to you. It is a sort of anarchy. No government or group that will have authority. This system is completely dependant on the people. Not the whole, but on each individual. The only obstacles I see for this is that it would require an spread of philosophical thought, which is the only way to get rid of stuff like greed and power dependence. Also other authoritative mafias around the world would quickly label such a society a threat to the sweaty grasp on their people.

So a philosophical approach would be best, though a difficult process.

 

[Dre89]

If there's no authority, then who decides these basic concepts?

Also, many people simple won't abide by these concepts if there is no punioshment for their actions.

 

[El_LoVo]

If there's no authority, then who decides these basic concepts?

People, individuals.
The society won't build itself.
Since there is no authority, there will not be a widespread propaganda program that will teach people a list of rules to follow.
The alternative would be active advocation of a non-violent philosophy by individuals who want to create a better world for the future generations (their kids).

Also, many people simple won't abide by these concepts if there is no punioshment for their actions.

Many people don't abide by rules even when there is a punishment.
Why do people do wrong?

What effect does doing wrong have on a person?
In our time, there would be jail time and fines, even death. All part of the criminal system.
Put those types of punishments aside.
Now how does doing wrong have an effect on the person.
What happens to their psyche? Do they feel good or bad, and why?
of course it will be different in each individual.

The point is the criminal justice system, the authorities that go out and serve "justice" is more of a band-aid. Their isn't even an attempt to understand the root of the problem.