debate

A social contract is when people in a society agree to give up some of their freedom to a higher authority for protection of their natural rights and the benefits of political order. Here's how I would contextualize this: Without political order, I would have the freedom to do basically whatever I want. This includes steal, kill, or do whatever to gain benefit. However, if we were to live in a society in which everyone would kill each other and steal from each other, it would be complete chaos, and it would basically be survival of the fittest. Therefore, in order to protect myself from these things from happening to me, I gave up some freedom for the protection of the US government. Basically, I consent to follow the laws that the US government have created, and in exchange, they will protect my natural rights as a human. Furthermore, other members of society would also give up their freedom to do whatever they want for the same benefits, and we will be better off as a society as a result. The agreement to give up some of my freedom to gain the benefits of political order is called a "social contract", as it is an agreement of the members of a society to cooperate and we all benefit as a result of doing so. However, just because I have entered a social contract and consent to follow the laws that the US has created, doesnt necessarily mean that I believe that these laws are justified. A good example of this would be the Vietnam war. Lots of people were morally against it. However, people who were against it ended up being drafted into the war. Although I might be morally against the war, it would be a violation of social contract if I were to evade the draft, and I would have to face punishment. Hopefully I explained it well enough. Slaves were perfectly capable of engaging in social contract, and therefore I am against slavery. Unconscious women are capable of engaging in social contract when they become conscious, and therefore I am against raping them.

ooooookkk either your being intellectually dishonest or you really dont understand was the social contract that allowed for black people to become slaves moral? was the social contract nazi germany held moral? and why were the people against the vietnam war? they wouldnt agree to a social contract with us, so what do they matter? why werent you morally for the war if the laws dont justify things? how dont laws justify something? appealing to authority and giving your rights away for the greater benefit of society is literally what a law is

I cant tell if you're trolling or not... Can a third party PLEASE tell me if I am being unclear in my arguments? Is it just me/how I'm stating my arguments?

yeah we seriously need a third party in this

calm down mio, im getting annoyed at you too because it feels like your jumping arouind what im asking, which is why we need a third party to come in and moderate and make sure we are speaking on the same thing

It feels like maybe your both using social contract to describe different instances for different accounts for different nuances Lamby was talking about morality of the slave and Nazi social contract and why the mass agreement was wrong Where as Mio is talking about social contracts in terms of what he is against in terms of an instance of rape or a current instance and why This kinda why it’s going in a circle, no one is actually completely wrong just seems like your talking bout the same thing but for different aspects of it

I feel like most of the disagreement even when I was debating lamby came with how we all explain or present our words tbh. That’s where this is breaking down a bit is part of the understanding of what eachother is trying to convery

I'd nominate Aleuzia for ref, but shouldn't the OP be the mod? It's his thread after all... I'd offer to do it myself, considering myself a pretty even-handed person, but I'm afraid my not being interested enough in the topic(s) may disqualify me.