It has been far too long since I have given much thought to the social contract. Sure, it's not something we think about everyday, but it is something that we take part in, whether we realize it or not. Discussion of social contract theory, from Hobbes, to Locke, Rousseau, Rawls, and so forth fast became my favorite subjects in political science classes.
Skimming from the top of the subject matter to be brief, social contract theory centers on whether man is essentially good, bad, or indifferent, whether man is inherently lawless or order-seeking and stems out to man's contract with society. The concept is that we as citizens trade or give up things, actions, expressions, etc in order to maintain the common good (and personal protection within society). Trading these sacrifices comes with a plus, though. We are assimilated into a society and receive protection from the world's evils.
Why would this come to mind on a Sunday morning, you might wonder.
A good friend's fiancée posted a quote as her status on Facebook and it really started my mental gears. At about six a.m.. I read the quote and could not stop thinking. Her re-quote was based on this quote:
"An eye for an eye leaves the world blind."
I posted back as a response "not if everyone follows the social contract."
Now, Mohandas Gandhi makes a good point. If our justice system took the "eye for an eye" stance, the prisons would be far less populated and murder might just be on the decline. But, our justice system balances humane treatment and accountability for one's actions just fine for now. No system is without flaws, of course, but the "eye for an eye" stance would definitely mean a different society and a different sense of justice.
The human race is by no means perfect. We are all human, as it is frequently said (with the word human being interchanged with the word imperfect). This notion that everyone will stray from the straight and narrow time and again, despite the best of intentions, basically just means that as a society: people mess up sometimes. I don't know enough about theology to go into the religious aspect of human imperfection, but, as we know, this is not an uncommon concept. I believe that humans do strive for a personal sense of stability, success, and ultimately a higher purpose. That does not mean that some out there will endanger or even hurt others in society to achieve their personal goals.
Thinking more about the quote, though, I realized I don't really like the way the quote is often used for expressing anti-war sentiments. Again, that's just me. I think that taking an eye for an eye might leave the world blind only if those punished for, say, taking an eye, did not learn from their eye-taking and were not an example for other potential eye-takers out there.
What am I saying? I know I ramble a lot. I apologize.
My take on the social contract is this: We are all subject to rules and sacrifice certain expression or actions. These sacrifices eventually lead to overall order and common good. I, as a citizen, am subject to these rules and I sacrifice the ability to, for example, walk around public places nude, for the overall public good and protection. I may not nude-walk, even if I want to, because it is a spoken (and also unspoken) term in my society's social contract. For the record, I don't really want to. Not only because it is part of my society's norms to wear clothes, but because this is what it looks like outside my home.
Society is better off because of my sacrifices and I am better off too; the social contract also provides that I will be protected with my fellow law-abiding citizens from nude-walkers, jaywalkers, and worse.
So why did I connect Gandhi's eye-for-an-eye quote with this social contract stuff? I know it is kind of a basic observation and I know that many before me have probably raised the same question, but if society as a whole abides by the social contract, would the concept of "an eye-for-an-eye" type of justice really be uncalled for? Would society be better off, or would we all be blinded? More specifically, if the harm that we bring on others would be guaranteed to be brought on us equally, would there be as much crime? Would there be as many out there willing to take the risk of breaking the social contract?
I don't know. Part of me says no and that an eye-for-an-eye justice system in society would make for a better, safer, more structured society. (Is more structured a good thing?) There would still be crimes committed unknowingly, or out of passion, or of some necessity such as self defense.
Yes. Part of me says that eye-for-an-eye justice in society would leave the world less likely to take someone's sight--not that it would leave us all blind. Granted, humanity is full of imperfection, but it is only certain imperfection that the social contract protects us against.
What do you think?
Some see the Social Contract arising when mankind first realized that by accepting norms the group benefits as a whole. The lawless hunter-gatherer benefits when the group knows some things are right or wrong. Whether this is intrinsic or not (entirely another topic to talk about) it still remains groups want to punish wrong doing. This in fact is one key part of the 7 Laws of Noah. Jews consider these 7 laws a basic minimum must for all people. Be it Gentile or not, everyone must obey these 7. One states that societies must establish a court of law to punish wrong doing. This has normally been an eye for an eye. The real question seems to be, how do we set the punishment? Is an eye for an eye fair? Even if this was something other than an eye for an eye, would this break the social contract? Not really. Because the group decides the punishment. Perhaps the best punishment is one that makes the perpetrator realize the pain caused and the error of their way. An eye for an eye would do this, but, so would many other things.
ReplyDeleteSocial contract works in a Utopian society because the persons therein are motivated by perfection. Outside of utopia or in reality, dystopia, an individual may go against the social contract because the person himself is not of the correct morals or because the person is not of the correct morals. Yes, I repeated myself on purpose. In the first instance I am using correct morals to define those agreed upon statutes of living that are necessary:no murder, no stealing,etc. In the second case, I am using correct morals to define those things that a society determines are correct even if they are not. For example, segregation or unequal pay for genders are both things within a society that have been decided (through law, practice, etc even if not through unanimous rule- but what is ever decided through unanimity?) and one who goes against this is breaking the social contract. Rosa Parks broke her society's way of living, and by that token an eye for an eye becomes a dangerous deterrent of freedom and such revolutionary ideas as equality. A social contract is in many cases irreverent to the true way a society ought to be and is contrary to the human condition and soul. It is often as Thomas Paine said of government- even in its best state, a necessary evil. As some poet once said (I believe it was myself :) ) " socially contrived separation by race and by gender is in need of some serious negation, quick! we need a societal surrender" The most perfect society is that which is unordered, not creating chaos but because man has reached perfection. While it seems safer to install more rules to reach greater security, in the long run this is depriving humanity of their one supreme characteristic of all: freewill. In the right circumstances, freewill has the power and the potential to be good enough to need no rule. But then we end where I began... in a utopia, something that we have not yet achieved.
ReplyDelete