# Critique of Social Contract Theory



## Zenas (Jun 10, 2008)

I bring this up here, as possible amici of the position might not have access to the Politics and Government Forum.

It was brought up at some point last week or the week before, in response to a presuppositional assertion that the Humanist cannot logically account for morality within our culture, that Social Contract Theory provides such an end. I would like to rebut this assertion with another presuppositional response. Any who can give an answer or criticism of my response, please do, even though, I assume, no one here is an active proponent of this sociological and particularly criminological theory. A criticism is nonetheless welcomed, as I am sure both I and others will encounter the assertion of this theory in apologetical endeavors for years to come. Let us then be prepared to give an answer when the occasion demands it. 

Social Contract Theory, from my understanding so correct me if I am mistaken, is the theory that our society is ordered in such a way that each individual member contained therein has agreed with the others to abide by certain standards or societal norms, in exchange for which, they will be left in relative peace with those around them. Violation of the standards or norms will begat retributive punishment from the other members of society. This is the "social contract" that we have all implicitly agreed to by living in society. 

It is offered generally as a means by which one can account for morality sans an objective moral qualifier, i.e. Creator. The mandate to not kill, steal, or rape are all societal norms which we have all agreed not to violate for our own good, to the benefit of ourselves and everyone around us. All of this is steeped on the presupposition that it is good and moral not to violate the Social Contract, or, the fall back position, that one should not violate it if they want to preserve their life. 

The first presupposition, that it is good and moral not to violate the Social Contract, admittedly, might be a straw man. If indeed this is not a tenant that the proponent holds, then he will undoubtedly use the fall back position, so far as I can surmise, for no other position seems tenable in order to enforce the idea that the Contract must be upheld. In lieu of this, the first position uses circular reasoning, as should be plain to see.

In seeking to explain the source of moral behavior, one must already have a source for moral behavior in order to assert that it is good and moral to hold to the Cotnract. If the Contract is the source for moral behavior, then preceeding the Contract, there is no societal norm with which to hold someone to their word of upholding the Contract. Simply put, prior to the Contract which dictates morality, there has to be a pre-existing morality in order to bind someone to their agreement. It is only after the Contract has been entered into and agreed to that morality can then stem and, as an analysis of the next position will show, no morality has been achieved at all, but merely a loose agreement to "play nice". 

The second possible presupposition that one could assume in order to hold one to the Contract is that it will put them in danger of losing their life or happiness should they violate the Contract. This assumes that one will get caught, however. There are many theives, murderers, rapists, etc. who "get away with it". Should they or should they not have violated the Social Contract? If they shouldn't have, why? They face no fear of punishment and, it cannot be said that violating the agreement is wrong because the agreement itself is what dictates as to what is right or wrong. You cannot appeal, as was shown before, to pre-existing morality in order to bind someone to the Contract when the Contract is what begats morality. Additionally, if it is true that one can do a crime and remain anonymous, then they have nothing to fear in the way of retribution, so then what should bind one to do what is "morally right"?

Indeed, it may be wholly beneficial to the individual to eliminate someone else if they can get away with it without facing some sort of correction from their peers. If one is competing with a co-worker for a higher paid position, and he knows he can kill his co-worker or otherwise sabotage him so that he can get the position, all the while remaining safe from punishment, what, in the Theory, can compel him not to do so? It would be beneficial to him, and he cannot be caught, ergo to what would the Humanist appeal in order to denounce his conduct, or will this be another case of "Sure, go for it." as I had read in another thread where a Humanist responded to the question of "Can I rape children?"


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 10, 2008)

Unless I am very much mistaken the idea of a social contract/compact is that the source of government arises from a mythical state of nature, i.e. if there was no state humans would consent to have a government. Therefore the source of political authority arise from man not God, contra-Romans 13. Hence the debate between Locke and Filmer.


----------



## Zenas (Jun 10, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Unless I am very much mistaken the idea of a social contract/compact is that the source of government arises from a mythical state of nature, i.e. if there was no state humans would consent to have a government. Therefore the source of political authority arise from man not God, contra-Romans 13. Hence the debate between Locke and Filmer.



Hmm, that's not what I heard last week and certainly not what I was taught in my undergraduate Criminology degree.  Maybe many people have been wrong!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 10, 2008)

Well Said Zenas.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 10, 2008)

Zenas said:


> Hmm, that's not what I heard last week and certainly not what I was taught in my undergraduate Criminology degree.  Maybe many people have been wrong!



It was what I was taught in my Politics degree 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract


----------



## Zenas (Jun 10, 2008)

We were probably taught diffrent emphases of the same theory then, being that what you described is politically geared and what I described is criminally geared, yet both stem from the same underlying assertion that society is the source of the subject we speak of.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 10, 2008)

Zenas said:


> We were probably taught diffrent emphases of the same theory then, being that what you described is politically geared and what I described is criminally geared, yet both stem from the same underlying assertion that society is the source of the subject we speak of.



You are probably correct


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 10, 2008)

I am sure the pond in the middle of your educations had something to do with it as well.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 10, 2008)

Zenas said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Unless I am very much mistaken the idea of a social contract/compact is that the source of government arises from a mythical state of nature, i.e. if there was no state humans would consent to have a government. Therefore the source of political authority arise from man not God, contra-Romans 13. Hence the debate between Locke and Filmer.
> ...



Just a quick note: Hobbes operated from a position of autonomy (self-law). And Locke, although he tried his best to keep God in the picture, started with the idea of a "blank-slate" mind. Take those two together and you end up with man being the source of law, not God.

Locke sought to demonstrate that humans derived all of their knowledge from experience. His goal was to show that knowledge was possible for a mind that had no prior ideas in order to counter skepticism (the idea that one cannot have knowledge) without relying upon some a priori foundation. 

As I recall, Locke held a role for God (what he called "the goodness of God") in that God assures that our simple ideas about things conform to the reality of those things, at least to the extent of human needs. Although Locke was rightly concerned about skepticism, his foundation allowed for the development of positive law (meaning, the law is what man says it is).


----------

