The Myth of the Social Contract

[ThePlayDrive]

OK, but all I was arguing was this:
All humans must eat to survive, and want the freedom to eat, etc. This is not dependant on government. (in general)
No one is claiming natural rights mean you are "free to enjoy them".

A right is something that is "due to a human being". The fact that human want freedom to eat does not prove that that freedom is naturally due to them. "Likely" was the key word in your last post. That's my only point.

If you proceed from there, what it looks like the Declaration of Independance states, is that:

So yes, government is in this case declared to be something to SECURE those rights. It didn't create them, is the entire, point.It also provides for securing them outside of government, should government fail to meet that goal (revolution), again, obviously it didn't create them, if one could secure those rights OUTSIDE of government too!

That's it! After all that, we appear to agree, I'm guessing.

I agree with this. Yes, government created something to secure those [likely] rights.

 

[Geo Patric]

I think you have an assumption that I am some sort of fundamentalist Christian or am an evangelical and are trying to argue from that perspective, which is why your arguments are falling flat with me. Just so you know, I have spent the vast majority of my life as a rather strong atheist who is quite used to using rational argumentation

well, the only 'argument' you have made so far was that you had been touched by jesus... so wadda ya expect? but, if you are willing to forgo that particular argument from authority, why don't we continue on a rational path?

if, as you suggest, you are a sufferer from aspergers, my sympathies, but that does not obviate making rational arguments. it can even help, though it does not bestow rationality, as you also seem to suggest. in fact, a study conducted at Queens University Belfast, suggests that aspergers victims are less likely to ascribe phenomenological teleology (religion) to events, relying on reason and nature.

ok...enough m . Nice Guy.

if you want to convince me of your position, this is your mission, prove your position's conclusions with real world things.

if you are a true rationalist, you will not make such asinine demands. PROVE.... is ridiculous. i cannot PROVE that you exist. rational arguments based on accepted verities is as good as it gets.

i HAVE shown that natural rights have a foundation in reason... you helped me to do it.

you have a teleological problem, as noted above. if we have rights to life, where do they originate? First Causes are infinitely reducible. you need a self evident first premise.

1, 2, 3... GO!

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

No, it doesn't refute it or affirm it.

'virtaully', sophist, virtually is what i said. i was pointedly specific in that. can you name a social animal that lacks a social hierarchy?

because the ubiquity of social animals and the prevalence of hierarchy within social animals provides a good material for a very strong inductive conclusion.

geo.

 

[Slartibartfast]

well, the only 'argument' you have made so far was that you had been touched by jesus... so wadda ya expect? but, if you are willing to forgo that particular argument from authority, why don't we continue on a rational path?

The first time I even mentioned it was in response to your scary world post. My response was that my world is not scary and I brought up religion as one of the reasons why.
The second time I mentioned it was when you used a quote from genesis to try and refute my question your assumption that natural is automatically good.

This is probably less than 5% of the arguments I have used in this thread thus far. On the other hand, you became fixated on it.

if, as you suggest, you are a sufferer from aspergers, my sympathies, but that does not obviate making rational arguments. it can even help, though it does not bestow rationality, as you also seem to suggest. in fact, a study conducted at Queens University Belfast, suggests that aspergers victims are less likely to ascribe phenomenological teleology (religion) to events, relying on reason and nature.

Which is fine because I never used any religious argumentation, except in response to yours.

if you are a true rationalist, you will not make such asinine demands. PROVE.... is ridiculous. i cannot PROVE that you exist. rational arguments based on accepted verities is as good as it gets.

Then it is insufficient evidence for me to base my actions on. I demand reality, not conjecture.

i HAVE shown that natural rights have a foundation in reason... you helped me to do it.

you have a teleological problem, as noted above. if we have rights to life, where do they originate? First Causes are infinitely reducible. you need a self evident first premise.

1, 2, 3... GO!

geo.

They originate in our belief that they exist. They are a product of our mind and nothing more. The basis for that belief, for most people, I believe (based on various psychological and neurological studies I have come across over the years) is our evolutionary need for cooperation, which both produces our desire for social behavior and the happiness derived from it. It is an imperfect good, of course, as everyone's brain is different, but its what exists.

If you will note, I just argued from reality, invoking the structure of the brain and the role of its parts, such as the amygdala. If you want to convince me, make this sort of argument.

 

[Geo Patric]

The fact that human does not prove that that freedom is naturally due to them.

no... a right is what IS right. where do you think the usage originated? and it is not that we "want freedom to eat", it is that it is rationally right (as proper and good without relying on external permission) as a very definition of 'right' that living things eat.

your pretense falls apart at the seams if you deny that it is right for living things to live.

and you cannot secure what does not exist - so rights exist BEFORE the government that gives them to you?

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

They originate in our belief that they exist.

WE are etiological agents in ourselves? we CREATE the reality we experience? what a bad joke.

ok, but i DID try to take you seriously.

geo.

 

[Slartibartfast]

WE are etiological agents in ourselves? we CREATE the reality we experience? what a bad joke.

ok, but i DID try to take you seriously.

geo.

We create our perceptive reality and we create our opinions. Almost all social constructions are based on perception and opinion. They are a shared belief and are as real as our faith in them.

You may not like this uncertain reality (at least, this is what I assume your meaning is behind your scary world comment) and wish to create a perfect morality of some type to layer on it to feel better and more secure, which is fine, but this perfect morality of yours is no more real than any other idea. I prefer not to fool myself though, I am as secure as the probability of harm coming to me, no more or less, wishful thinking will not change this. However, right now and in my immediate future, every indication tells me that this probability will not significantly change, so I feel secure.

 

[sangha]

'virtaully', sophist, virtually is what i said. i was pointedly specific in that. can you name a social animal that lacks a social hierarchy?

because the ubiquity of social animals and the prevalence of hierarchy within social animals provides a good material for a very strong inductive conclusion.

geo.

Humans engage in hierarchies in some situations, and do not engage in hierarchies in others. Sometimes, an individual is on top of one hierarchy while below in another one. There is nothing innately hierarchical about humans as far as I know.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Needless to say, I have a far greater understanding of these things than you ever possibly could have, because I have no choice in the matter.

You don't need superpowers to understand and employ logic. Let's try to stay away from fallacious reasoning like this, and allow everyone the opportunity to sort out points of logic and emotion for ourselves.

In short, I'll believe your mastery of logic when I see it in practice. Your credentials mean nothing.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You don't need superpowers to understand and employ logic. Let's try to stay away from fallacious reasoning like this, and allow everyone the opportunity to sort out points of logic and emotion for ourselves.

Fair enough. Geo annoyed me with his trying to play a trump card based on my religious beliefs as a way to dismiss my arguments without feeling bad about doing so, so I figured I would remove his basis for trying to use that card, in an attempt to move the discussion back to the central point. My gamble, based on earlier expressed behavior that I observed in his postings, was that this would cause enough annoyance that he would be forced to move on from his fixation. It appears to have worked as his next post was refocused on him insisting on the truth of his reasoning, which is a more interesting subject for me and is closer to the central them of this thread.

However, I do agree that one does not need super powers to process things logically, however, I do retain my view that humans implement logic imperfectly and that some are better than others for any number of reasons. However, this insistence was more of a behavioral modification for him and less of an argument tool for me.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Fair enough. Geo annoyed me with his trying to play a trump card based on my religious beliefs as a way to dismiss my arguments without feeling bad about doing so, so I figured I would remove his basis for trying to use that card, in an attempt to move the discussion back to the central point. My gamble, based on earlier expressed behavior that I observed in his postings, was that this would cause enough annoyance that he would be forced to move on from his fixation. It appears to have worked as his next post was refocused on him insisting on the truth of his reasoning, which is a more interesting subject for me and is closer to the central them of this thread.

A fair gambit now that you explain it. Nicely played.

However, I do agree that one does not need super powers to process things logically, however, I do retain my view that humans implement logic imperfectly and that some are better than others for any number of reasons. However, this insistence was more of a behavioral modification for him and less of an argument tool for me.

I agree, people are apt to let their emotions lead them to faulty logic. But by the same token, logic is merely a tool, not an end unto itself. We have to let our emotions dictate our goals, and employ logical reasoning to get there.

 

[Slartibartfast]

A fair gambit now that you explain it. Nicely played.

It was a gamble, sometimes these things blow up in my face, but so far, he does not appear to have been hard to figure out on an emotional level. Most people are fairly easy to manipulate in that manner, even though I don't like to do it, unless there is no other alternative and argumentation or other nice means will not work. (I tend to only do it defensively).

I agree, people are apt to let their emotions lead them to faulty logic. But by the same token, logic is merely a tool, not an end unto itself. We have to let our emotions dictate our goals, and employ logical reasoning to get there.

The problem is that it is insidious, everyone thinks they have a monopoly on the truth and that they are logical while no one else is.

Also, logic can be used as the justification for all sorts of things, even self contradictory things, all depending on the axioms that one accepts as the foundation.

Logic is not absent from judgement calls, for example, in the justification for natural rights, the chain stems from "this is what organisms do" to "it is right (as in moral or justified) that organisms do what they do". The word right is a judgement and an assigned value from the thinker. A lot of people don't recognize that they are making this judgement and assume their chain is entirely composed of logic as if were outside from their own person belief system, but this is not the case, because the very act of deciding what is right and good involves a personal judgement.

Lastly, we can take a perfectly reasonable premise and logic it out until the outcome is absurd. The logic itself is not a guard against this.

Don't get me wrong, logic is good, but it is not perfect and has to be verified whenever possible against reality to avoid these possible errors.

 

[Mustachio]

The social contract theory itself originated before the modern scientific era, yet it has changed remarkably little in the face of scientific progress. People still talk about the "nasty, brutish and short" natural state, as a justification for government. The trouble is that this argument is based on a faulty premise.

We now know, thanks to modern science, that humanity is, by nature, a hierarchical animal. We know that humanity is naturally disposed to government. Simply put, the state of nature on which the social contract is predicated is a myth.

Who is this "we" we're talking about? You put forth an enormous subjective premise, not quite sure what you're trying to say. All you've done is take a Hobbes quote and tried to tear it down with modern science, as though negating Hobbes with science also negates social contract theory as a whole.

Care to call into question the writings of Locke? Rousseau? Both pioneers of social contract theory and just as relevant. Sociopolitical theories are broad, they aren't like little math equations that can or cannot be proven right. When I'm talking to libertarians I often hear them come to these big sweeping conclusions and they'll get three steps ahead of their own argument to the point which it no longer makes any sense.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Lastly, we can take a perfectly reasonable premise and logic it out until the outcome is absurd. The logic itself is not a guard against this.

Don't get me wrong, logic is good, but it is not perfect and has to be verified whenever possible against reality to avoid these possible errors.

I think the reason for this is not the fault of logic, but the limitations of our own comprehension. We start with a reasonable premise and, as you say, logic it out to something absurd. But this is not logics fault, rather it is garbage in garbage out. The reasonable premise was not totally understood by us to begin with, it was vague in some way. It's the same reason we can't predict the weather more than a few days in advance with accuracy. Taken to extremes we exceed our ability to craft a reasonable premise in the first place.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

no... a right is what IS right. where do you think the usage originated? and it is not that we "want freedom to eat", it is that it is rationally right (as proper and good without relying on external permission) as a very definition of 'right' that living things eat.

this is a right:

right - that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
Right | Define Right at Dictionary.com

your pretense falls apart at the seams if you deny that it is right for living things to live.

Please show me empirical evidence of where in nature "that which is due to anyone" is clarified. If you're going to argue that "it's logical to assume that we have a right to life because it's logical", that isn't an argument - I want empirical evidence for rights. I have empirical evidence that hunger exists - that trees exist. I want empirical evidence that non-man made natural rights exist.

 

[Geo Patric]

Fair enough. Geo annoyed me

pobrocito!

However, I do agree that one does not need super powers to process things logically

nope... all you need is a logical inclination (best if schooled) will and an acceptance that reason actually has merit.

however, I do retain my view that humans implement logic imperfectly and that some are better than others for any number of reasons.

THAT is a fact.

However, this insistence was more of a behavioral modification for him and less of an argument tool for me.

and please, do not think it goes unappreciated. but you have yet to demonstrate your rational powers on the matter of natural rights. . . or anything else, for that matter.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

A right is something that is "due to a human being". The fact that human want freedom to eat does not prove that that freedom is naturally due to them. "Likely" was the key word in your last post. That's my only point.


I agree with this. Yes, government created something to secure those [likely] rights.

if rights are what is "due", "owed or owing as a debt", how was the debt incurred, by whom and how do 'rights satisfy that debt?

geo.

 

[Slartibartfast]

and please, do not think it goes unappreciated. but you have yet to demonstrate your rational powers on the matter of natural rights. . . or anything else, for that matter.

geo.

What I did was necessary to get us back on track, now that we are, we shall continue:

If recollection serves, your logic chain got stuck where you were trying to assign the value of right or good to a biological organism fulfilling a biological process (for example, humans eating or seeking food). You were unable to answer the doubt that this is inherently good. I think your best attempt was a quote out of genesis 1.

At several points during the debate I have pointed out this flaw in your chain, in fact. When I do, you fall back to insisting that it is good and acting huffy, while failing to provide the proof that you claim to possess.

Can you give a logical reason why one should assign a personal value such as rightfulness and still remain objective?

 

[Geo Patric]

If you're going to argue that "it's logical to assume that we have a right to life because it's logical", that isn't an argument

well, then, i suppose it is a good thing that i a not going to do that, innit?

I want empirical evidence for rights.

and i want a mazzarati... empiricism is not the primary means of demonstrating abstracts... physical evidence is the realm of science, not philosophy. REASON is the realm of philosophy.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

What I did was necessary to get us back on track

spare me... what you did was run in circles because you had nowhere to go.

now that we are, we shall continue:

how generous of you!

If recollection serves, your logic chain got stuck

then recollection does not serve.
lets recap:

we were arguing about the legitimacy of the Social Contract based on 'natural rights'. i said the argument (per locke, Rousseau, Jefferson et al) on which it was based was rational. you said that there is no such thing as 'natural rights'

after a lotta stupid quibbling, i asked you: "is it objectively rightful (good and proper and justifiable in and of itself) to seek to alleviate your hunger?"

you gave a non answer about your 'feeling' and then said "my feelings want me to say yes"

i commended your 'feelings' as being at least in accord with reason and asked "if there were no one to KEEP you from alleviating your hunger, could you do so?"

and you said, "sure"

then you went of into some irrelevant gibberish about nature's opinions (???)

i said

you are alive. it is good and proper in and of itself that you are alive simply because it came about as a matter of nature (or because god chose it... either way, same conclusion). taking that life, then would be unrightful. you have a right to life.

you are capable, as a natural aspect of your being, to meet the needs of that life and ensure your well being.

you are free to pursue your own happiness.

finally, i made the point that these things were true, before there were governments to give them and would remain true if you were all alone in the universe as it is irrational to claim that it is WRONG for a organism work to maintain its well-being

no, nothing 'stuck'. that there are aspects of nature that you may find icky or you are unwilling to view as rightful for ideological reasons... because someone told that nature is evil.... does not deny the patently obvious truth that it is right for a living thing to do what is natural to it.

the argument is rational, whether YOU like the conclusion or not.

if you were wondering what i mean by 'gibberish, THIS "Can you give a logical reason why one should assign a personal value such as rightfulness and still remain objective?" is good example.

geo.

 

[Slartibartfast]

then recollection does not serve.
lets recap:

we were arguing about the legitimacy of the Social Contract based on 'natural rights'. i said the argument (per locke, Rousseau, Jefferson et al) on which it was based was rational. you said that there is no such thing as 'natural rights'

after a lotta stupid quibbling, i asked you: "is it objectively rightful (good and proper and justifiable in and of itself) to seek to alleviate your hunger?"

you gave a non answer about your 'feeling' and then said "my feelings want me to say yes"

This is because I feel no need to base my morality on abstract logic. The brain creates morality through an instinct towards social behavior, this is why I accept my feeling as valid.

i commended your 'feelings' as being at least in accord with reason and asked "if there were no one to KEEP you from alleviating your hunger, could you do so?"

and you said, "sure"

So far so good.

then you went of into some irrelevant gibberish about nature's opinions (???)

That would be theplaydrive who posted that.

i said

finally, i made the point that these things were true, before there were governments to give them and would remain true if you were all alone in the universe as it is irrational to claim that it is WRONG for a organism work to maintain its well-being

no, nothing 'stuck'. that there are aspects of nature that you may find icky or you are unwilling to view as rightful for ideological reasons... because someone told that nature is evil.... does not deny the patently obvious truth that it is right for a living thing to do what is natural to it.

the argument is rational, whether YOU like the conclusion or not.

geo.

Yes, you did make this point and in doing so, you imposed a value judgement in the process, which is where your logic breaks down. Value judgments are inherently subjective, which breaks your logic chain.

 

[Geo Patric]

Also, logic can be used as the justification for all sorts of things, even self contradictory things, all depending on the axioms that one accepts as the foundation.

sorry... that is foolish and a indication of your fear of reason. simply collecting fancy words does not make for rational assertions

Logic is not absent from judgement calls, for example, in the justification for natural rights, the chain stems from "this is what organisms do" to "it is right (as in moral or justified) that organisms do what they do".

more gibberish.

Lastly, we can take a perfectly reasonable premise and logic it out until the outcome is absurd. The logic itself is not a guard against this.

a 'reducio ad absurdum' is NOT logic, it is fallacy - another indication of your fear of reason and preference for irrational thinking.

Don't get me wrong, logic is good, but it is not perfect and has to be verified whenever possible against reality to avoid these possible errors.

more gibberish

geo.

 

[Slartibartfast]

sorry... that is foolish and a indication of your fear of reason. simply collecting fancy words does not make for rational assertions

more gibberish.

a 'reducio ad absurdum' is NOT logic, it is fallacy - another indication of your fear of reason and preference for irrational thinking.


more gibberish

geo.

When you can't beat 'em, dismiss 'em to save face.

 

[Geo Patric]

Yes, you did make this point and in doing so, you imposed a value judgement in the process, which is where your logic breaks down. Value judgments are inherently subjective, which breaks your logic chain.

you make a claim, do not show how it is relevant or how it negates the argument.

one, value judgments do not negate reason. reason is the search for value!

two, what value judgment? that something is good? again. philosophy originated as the inquiry of what is good. . .without having to depend on myth and magic to explain it... maybe THAT is why it scares you

geo..

 

[Geo Patric]

When you can't beat 'em, dismiss 'em to save face.

balls. you have yet to offer a single decent rational argument for anything.

geo.