Philosophy by the river

Why should you abide by the social contract? (Venue: by the river)

Sun, Jul 5 · 11:00 AM BST

Near The Mill. On the grass by the river with our bovine friends, The Mill, 14 Mill Lane, Cambridge, al, GB

(Scroll down for topic intro)

THE VENUE: By the river

Let's meet outside by the river. You'll find joining instructions below or at: https://rbphilo.com/riverside.html

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: Why should you abide by the social contract?

Thank you to Richard for this week's topic.

Individual: People tell me to obey all the laws, even the ones I don't like. But why? I never agreed to be obedient.

Society: Try thinking of it like this. It is as if the people living round here a long time ago agreed a social contract, that we would have a certain procedure to make laws, and we would all obey them because while one person might be prevented from stealing, using violence, or getting out of paying their fair share for public works and state benefits, he or she would benefit because others could not get away with those things either. A peaceful and law-abiding society is a prosperous society, and sure enough, we have all benefited.

Individual: At least you admit that it is only as if the contract was made. It was a fiction. And now you say I should be bound by something that never happened.

Society: But lots of philosophers have thought in these terms, and when you put the idea to people, they often agree that it is the best way to make sense of political arrangements that rely on consent. It would not apply to arrangements that relied on force, but who would want that, apart from the tyrant with the guns?

Individual: Even if everybody throughout history had thought as you do, that would still not require me to think in the same way. And anyway, there are so many laws I don't like.

Society: That's OK. Part of the contract is a democratic process to change laws. Propose your changes, and if enough people agree, the changes will happen.

Individual: No, no! I am an individual, with my own qualities and views, not subject to the majority. And my nature is such that these laws do not suit me. I repudiate the presumption that I consent to this contract.

Society: That's not the way to think about it. Don't see who you are and then choose. Instead read John Rawls on the veil of ignorance, and imagine what arrangements you would choose if you did not know whether you would be strong or weak, ethnic majority or minority, and so on. That takes out selfish bias.

Individual: Philosophical waffle! I shall not turn to theft or violence, but I am not paying a penny more in taxes than I consider justified for the services I get. I've done the sums, and will pay 60 per cent of what is demanded.

Society: Apply the usual procedure to take the money from bank accounts without consent.

Individual: See, in the end you resort to the use of force.

Please come along on Sunday and say, without recourse to violence, who should win this debate.