News:

When one conveys certain things, particularly of such gravity, should one not then appropriately cite sources, authorities...

Main Menu

Social Contract

Started by Mastriani, July 10, 2008, 05:02:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mastriani

Having recently ignored my 40th birthday, for everything other than an excuse to take time off for some very needed/wanted reading time, I've been giving more and more thought to social contract theory.  (My apologies to those that are bored with this, it always happens during political changeover years.)

Admittedly, it is a least favorite subject, of all the available within the philosophical realm.  Beyond finding it generally weak and borderline ludicrous, it is certainly found to be repulsive.

Having reread Camus, Sartre and Nietzsche with the time off ... along with my most highly favored; Machiavelli, Hume and Fromm, a pervasive thought arose.  So I've gone back to looking over this unmitigated dung patty, for another go at it.

I'm trying, but it just can't be stomached.  I have to wonder why there haven't been, at least to my knowledge, any serious rebuttals to this "theory".  So perhaps those here who are better read can provide aid.

I just want to start with a few basic tenets of the theory and see if and/or where the conversation goes.

First off, this statement irks me, endlessly: "It is in an individual’s rational self-interest to voluntarily subjugate the freedom of action one has under the natural state in order to obtain the benefits provided by the formation of social structures."

Balderdash.  There is no voluntary action that any would be sovereign engages in to become a willing agent of the contract.  Utter fodder.  We are born into sociality without choice.  Before any of us has formed or had developed for us, the faculties to logically, or even emotively, assign value to the contract; we are indoctrinated.  Even in the instance of contract breaking, (ie. criminal activity), it is not done as a matter of forethought with regards to the contract itself.  It is simply primal activity, either out of necessity or drives from irrational states.

Even Plato must have been on the Dank for presuming that social inclusion was a matter of choice.  I'd like to see a rational explanation for these bogus assumptions, and have yet to find any dissent, outside of the intellect juggernaut, David Hume.

Here's a major stumper for my perspective: "Contractarianism holds that persons are primarily self-interested, and that a rational assessment of the best strategy for attaining the maximization of their self-interest will lead them to act morally (where the moral norms are determined by the maximization of joint interest) and to consent to governmental authority."  (I chose contractarianism because it is the most prevalent variety of the "modern era" ... especially politically.)

Well, beyond being heinously contrived, how about the bandy inclusion of a glaring error in rationality?  Read carefully this bit of academic tripe: "their self-interest will lead them to act morally".

First, it was clearly outlined, (take your pick; Plato, Locke, Mills, Rawls, Rousseau), that social contract is a direct opposition to so called "natural state actions", (ie. the sovereign acts independently according to need and want, harboring no moral intentions in its strategising and any antecedent conquests).

Having lived a bit, and sometimes lived hard, I find this to be completely laughable.  Morality guides the agent?  Hmmmm.  How about competitive abject stupidity?  The idea that what others have, the agent most likely wants, outside of need, for no other reason than it is something they don't possess or would have to strategise to even greater lengths, to obtain.

More could be said, but it seems pertinent at this time to ask, in all seriousness:  Who buys this hogwash?  You couldn't pander it to me for a dirty quid.
Praedatorious culminis; hominis necis


Jolly Sapper

This sounds a lot like the problems I have with the basic tenets of "the market" as explained to me in my business classes.

The idea that human beings are rational actors is quite the bit of wishful thinking.  

First, humans can't truly be rational in all actions and thoughts because we are incapable of understanding every iota of information that the universe has to offer at every instant.  Lacking the ability to immediately process this much data (assuming it was available to us) leaves us unable to make a decision when we need based on the best information possible (I intentionally refrained from using the word available).

[quote="Mastriani']Well, beyond being heinously contrived, how about the bandy inclusion of a glaring error in rationality? Read carefully this bit of academic tripe: "their self-interest will lead them to act morally".[/quote]

This I agree with totally.  This seems to more support the claim that a "rational actor" would be inclined to act morally ONLY when they could NOT get away with acting immorally, not out of any sense that acting morally gives any inherent perpetual benefit.

Mastriani

QuoteThe idea that human beings are rational actors is quite the bit of wishful thinking.

Agreed, completely.  Rationality is more of a subjective instance than an operating function of the vast majority of hominids.

QuoteThis I agree with totally. This seems to more support the claim that a "rational actor" would be inclined to act morally ONLY when they could NOT get away with acting immorally, not out of any sense that acting morally gives any inherent perpetual benefit.

Precisely.  Not withstanding that the founding premise of social contract, (outside the necessary economic structuring), is that because of man being "divine creation", we have a drive or motivation to act morally.  Which is blatantly in opposition to the genetic or evolutionary drive; "I for myself", to ensure the individual's specific gene line continues.

I think that if a purely objective view of human behavior is taken, in the greatest number of instances, morality is the "last ditch effort"; when all other available strategies have met with failure.  In an objective view, the criminal element most often comes out ahead by breaking the contract; they are not inclined or necessarily forced to reciprocate.
Praedatorious culminis; hominis necis


Loffler

"The idea that human beings are rational actors is quite the bit of wishful thinking. "

This isn't entirely accurate. As Stephen Landsburg puts it:
"Ask a physicist how long it would take a bowling ball to land if you dropped it from the roof of your house. He will happily assume that your house is located in a vacuum, and then proceed to calculate the right answer. Ask an engineer to predict the path of a billiard ball after it is struck at a certain angle. He will assume that there is no such thing as friction, and the accuracy of his prediction will give him no cause for regret. Ask an economist to predict the effects of a arise in the gasoline tax, an he will assume that all people are rational and give you a pretty accurate response."

In other words, economics does not assume people are rational because they really think they're always rational. They just find that assumption the most useful in predicting general human behavior.

Jolly Sapper

Quote from: "Loffler"...
In other words, economics does not assume people are rational because they really think they're always rational. They just find that assumption the most useful in predicting general human behavior.

And once again ceteris paribus makes a mess of things.  

It does seem odd that you would assume that something is a constant out of convenience when you know that its not true.

Loffler

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"
Quote from: "Loffler"...
In other words, economics does not assume people are rational because they really think they're always rational. They just find that assumption the most useful in predicting general human behavior.

And once again ceteris paribus makes a mess of things.  

It does seem odd that you would assume that something is a constant out of convenience when you know that its not true.

Except overall, it is true. People really do tend to make the rational choice, and you probably will tend to make accurate predictions operating under that assumption.

Occam

I think the problem is that the philosophers recognize social behavior and how variations in it in various societies have led to different consequences.  They deduced the logic behind it and wrote rational tracts to explain the behavior of societies.  Unfortunately, we jump to the conclusion that we as individuals will apply that same reasoning to consciously to ourselves.  

Just because we recognize the survival value of remaining as a herd for a group of antelopes, none of them wants to get pulled down and killed by a lion to protect the rest of the herd.  I believe the basics of our social behavior are not rational, but inculcated very early (see my post in the thread on the basis for morals/ethics).  However, just because it doesn't seem rational, to sacrifice ourselves, delay our gratification, or help others without immediate benefit to ourselves, doesn't mean most of us don't have strong unconscious early training to do these things.

Occam

Jolly Sapper

This is what I agree with.  I've no problem with the idea that people develop relationships (contracts) to help live in relative peace and stability within groups.  I see it described as one social contract instead of many different social contracts with different people.  The content of these contracts are not the same and there is nothing that requires that every social contract be the same in the real world.  

So if I can have a social contract with my family that has one set of obligations and criteria, and I can have another social contract with a stranger in the USA, and I can have a social contract with some little Taiwanese kid.  The contract with my family is one where I risk being shunned if I violate certain expectations, I will be expected to help my family in some situations even when it causes me problems,etc.  The contract with the stranger in the USA is one where we both understand that I won't try to steal or kill that stranger, while that stranger is expected to reciprocate.  The social contract I have with the Taiwanese kid is one where I'm pretty much ensuring that the kid is going to be slave labor because I want/can only afford shoes.

I thought the point of the social contract was to explain how human beings try to survive and thrive together in groups without killing each other.  Yet its getting easier and easier, with globalization and the internet etc, to create one sided social contracts (often without really being aware that the contract being made is abusive) that not only benefit one party in the contract but hurt or destroy the other party.  

I should probably read up on social contract theory, I think I may be missing some of what it was intending.

Mastriani

QuoteIn other words, economics does not assume people are rational because they really think they're always rational. They just find that assumption the most useful in predicting general human behavior.

Yet, that assumption fails, miserably, under scrutiny.  Mostly, where the facts are presented in place of this falsifiable opinion.

500 years ago, Machiavelli wrote, "Of humanity we may generally say they are fickle, hypocritical and greedy of gain."

Nothing has changed, and the current socio-economic structure of America, (best termed "thug capitalism"), points directly to the actual behavior, not the "prefered" or desired ideal.  The position you state is predicated upon false assumption and a need to see the animal as other than what it is.
Praedatorious culminis; hominis necis


Mastriani

QuoteHowever, just because it doesn't seem rational, to sacrifice ourselves, delay our gratification, or help others without immediate benefit to ourselves, doesn't mean most of us don't have strong unconscious early training to do these things.

This is a valid point Occam, except when placed next to the commentary of the leaders of the particular philosophical field.  The agency is overtly professed to be a moral drive from "man's divine heritage", placing God as the prime mover for social cohesion and reciprocity.

As we are seeing in the current cycle of social decay, (easily seen before in the precursory indicators of the fall of Rome), the facts of the matter become apparent.  Unless any of a multitude of possible retributive threats are utilised, the animals will revert to the most basic behavior; "I for myself".

Although I agree the entirety of the social contract's ability to even exist is laid in the early indoctrination, the drive for the individual is only sublimated, not changed, (ie. the proposed morally altruistic drive for fair reciprocation is in direct opposition to the actual drive of ensuring the individual's survival, physically and genetically.)
Praedatorious culminis; hominis necis