Skip to main content

Social Contract Theory



"Why should I obey the laws?"

"Because you'll be punished if you don't."

"Assume for the moment that I expect to get away with a particular violation. Or that the odds are fairly good and I am willing to run the risk of capture. Should I obey the law anyway? And, if so, why?"

"You should obey the law, because in doing so you abide by the social contract."

"Show me that contract and my signature thereon."

"If your signature were on it, it would be a contract without adjective. The social contract is only implicit."

"From what is it implied?"

"From the fact that you use the roads."

"Roads could be privately constructed and run."

"Yes, but they usually aren't, and you use them."

"So a government deserves my allegiance because it can create and in fact monopolize certain necessary avenues of transportation and because I am so unfortunate as to use them? I'm not sure why it deserves anything more than what I'm charged at the toll plaza for that. If I run into a pothole, am I allowed to break a law that day as a sort of rebate on my bargained-for allegiance?"

"No. Consider this. You are not actively in rebellion against the sovereign where you live. Am I right there?"

"Yes."

"Then you have submitted to its authority. It is only logical to follow through on the consequences of your submission by acting as a good subject."

"Hmmm. let's think about that. Suppose a robber stops me in a dark street one night. He holds a gun against my ribs and demands I hand over all my money. Fortunately, I have thought about this possibility before hand and I have two wallets in my suit. I think of them as my real wallet and my pseudo-wallet. One with most of my cash and all of my IDs, the other with just five one-dollar bills and an expired driver's license. I act submissive in the face of his superior force and hand him the pseudo-wallet. He runs off happy."

"This is relevant ... how?"

"Submission to authority does not logically require that submission be whole hearted. All that is required to avoid open revolt is ... the avoidance of open revolt. Surreptitious revolt remains a possibility, and not necessarily one that seems intuitively blameworthy."


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
24 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
10 comments
Read more

The Growing Block Theory of Time

My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
8 comments
Read more