What exactly is the constitution, or any law, if not a social contract.
What exactly is a BDSM dungeon, if not a social contract?
What exactly is a thanksgiving dinner with the family, if not a social contract?
What exactly is a lemmy shitpost and a dipshit commenting on it, if not a social contract?
What exactly is a terms and conditions, if not a social contract?
What exactly is a terms of service, if not a social contract?
What exactly is a “please, harder daddy” if not a social contract?
My issue with “social contract” is how vague the concept is. I get that it’s an agreement we accept to have certain conditions met. But that definition itself is so vague why are we even discussing it?
You are right in that people seem to be misusing the term “social contract”. The actual definition is not vague, but broad. The point is that a person who wants to live in a society accepts its fundamental tenets as they exist in exchange for society at large letting it live amongst itself.
So one example of a social contract might be the one that the USSR and aligned countries’ societies had, which had the fundamental law of “things will continue to improve for you, but in exchange you must support our politics”. When things stopped improving, people stopped staying out of politics and the society collapsed and reformed.
As far as I understand, the US “social contract” is at least on the level of ideology that if you “pull yourself up by the bootstraps”, you get to “live the American Dream”. When they talk about people “rejecting the social contract”, what they mean is that they don’t think that they are getting what they want out of society at large. If it’s few people that do this, you get criminals and sovcits.
This theory is just to explain why people at large behave differently if they perceive their society as good, just, liveable, honourable and all manner of positive things.
Consider the sentiment of “If you saw someone steal from Walmart, you didn’t, but don’t steal from mom-and-pop shops, they need the money”.
People say this is because since Walmart is perceived as not adhering to the social contract by stealing wages, killing off small businesses and mooching off public money. That means that, unlike mom-and-pop shops, they are fair game and not dishonourable to steal from. Formal law still applies to them, you will go to jail if they catch you all the same, but society will not shun you. In a way if you break the “unwritten law”, then it does not protect you either.
As far as I understand, the US “social contract” is at least on the level of ideology that if you “pull yourself up by the bootstraps”, you get to “live the American Dream”. When they talk about people “rejecting the social contract”, what they mean is that they don’t think that they are getting what they want out of society at large. If it’s few people that do this, you get criminals and sovcits.
You’re probably right, emphasis on “probably” because the term is so vague we don’t really know what anyone who uses it really means. By the terms you’ve put forth, I too “reject the social contract” of “pulling yourself up by the bootstraps” allowing you to “live the american dream” on account of those words not having any real meaning. As an american, I can draw my own meaning from those words, but it will differ from the meaning others put on those words.
This theory is just to explain why people at large behave differently if they perceive their society as good, just, liveable, honourable and all manner of positive things.
And that’s the thing, because it’s different to each person, we’re all talking about different contracts, that we don’t understand but we assume about each other, causing difficulties in communication.
I’m happy to discuss law, constitution, policy, morality, etc… but discussing a “social contract” to me sounds like we’re just discussing the unspoken assumptions of others.
As for my social contracts, those who know, know, you know?
A usually implicit agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.
Laws are explicit, not implicit. You said you didn’t understand what a social contract was and I answered you. Now you’re just being intentionally obtuse.
I never said anything of the sort. I said I didn’t understand the wording of the social contract. Please just link this one contract to me, since everyone’s always discussing it.
I can’t have a conversation unless I know the topic.
Topic like “agreement” is bit too vauge but hey, I’ll try: “Isn’t it great when everyone? I know, right?!”
And what benefit will me understanding the precursor to “agreements” grant me?
Folks keep thinking I don’t understand what a social contract is.
I don’t understand why such an old term is relevant when it can’t even be defined and is different for each person. The best we can come up with is something like “well, you do the things society wants and you get treated well”. Which one person will interpret as “I give food to the homeless, because they need food” and another person will interpret as “I don’t give food to the homeless because they need to understand the grind, they need to feel the hunger, it will motivate them to do better”. Both people obey “the social contract” yet, both are participating in opposite actions.
“The social contract” sounds a lot like “don’t be a dick” which, while nice sounding on the surface really needs clarification and this is why we have written contracts, governments, law, etc.
Sure, this wasn’t the case prior to law, but we have law now so…
What exactly is a BDSM dungeon, if not a social contract?
What exactly is a thanksgiving dinner with the family, if not a social contract?
What exactly is a lemmy shitpost and a dipshit commenting on it, if not a social contract?
What exactly is a terms and conditions, if not a social contract?
What exactly is a terms of service, if not a social contract?
What exactly is a “please, harder daddy” if not a social contract?
My issue with “social contract” is how vague the concept is. I get that it’s an agreement we accept to have certain conditions met. But that definition itself is so vague why are we even discussing it?
You are right in that people seem to be misusing the term “social contract”. The actual definition is not vague, but broad. The point is that a person who wants to live in a society accepts its fundamental tenets as they exist in exchange for society at large letting it live amongst itself.
So one example of a social contract might be the one that the USSR and aligned countries’ societies had, which had the fundamental law of “things will continue to improve for you, but in exchange you must support our politics”. When things stopped improving, people stopped staying out of politics and the society collapsed and reformed.
As far as I understand, the US “social contract” is at least on the level of ideology that if you “pull yourself up by the bootstraps”, you get to “live the American Dream”. When they talk about people “rejecting the social contract”, what they mean is that they don’t think that they are getting what they want out of society at large. If it’s few people that do this, you get criminals and sovcits.
This theory is just to explain why people at large behave differently if they perceive their society as good, just, liveable, honourable and all manner of positive things.
Consider the sentiment of “If you saw someone steal from Walmart, you didn’t, but don’t steal from mom-and-pop shops, they need the money”.
People say this is because since Walmart is perceived as not adhering to the social contract by stealing wages, killing off small businesses and mooching off public money. That means that, unlike mom-and-pop shops, they are fair game and not dishonourable to steal from. Formal law still applies to them, you will go to jail if they catch you all the same, but society will not shun you. In a way if you break the “unwritten law”, then it does not protect you either.
You’re probably right, emphasis on “probably” because the term is so vague we don’t really know what anyone who uses it really means. By the terms you’ve put forth, I too “reject the social contract” of “pulling yourself up by the bootstraps” allowing you to “live the american dream” on account of those words not having any real meaning. As an american, I can draw my own meaning from those words, but it will differ from the meaning others put on those words.
And that’s the thing, because it’s different to each person, we’re all talking about different contracts, that we don’t understand but we assume about each other, causing difficulties in communication.
I’m happy to discuss law, constitution, policy, morality, etc… but discussing a “social contract” to me sounds like we’re just discussing the unspoken assumptions of others.
As for my social contracts, those who know, know, you know?
social contract noun
See also: law
Laws are explicit, not implicit. You said you didn’t understand what a social contract was and I answered you. Now you’re just being intentionally obtuse.
I never said anything of the sort. I said I didn’t understand the wording of the social contract. Please just link this one contract to me, since everyone’s always discussing it.
I can’t have a conversation unless I know the topic.
Topic like “agreement” is bit too vauge but hey, I’ll try: “Isn’t it great when everyone? I know, right?!”
You have all the tools you need at your disposal. At this point, you are the biggest obstacle to your success.
And what benefit will me understanding the precursor to “agreements” grant me?
Folks keep thinking I don’t understand what a social contract is.
I don’t understand why such an old term is relevant when it can’t even be defined and is different for each person. The best we can come up with is something like “well, you do the things society wants and you get treated well”. Which one person will interpret as “I give food to the homeless, because they need food” and another person will interpret as “I don’t give food to the homeless because they need to understand the grind, they need to feel the hunger, it will motivate them to do better”. Both people obey “the social contract” yet, both are participating in opposite actions.
“The social contract” sounds a lot like “don’t be a dick” which, while nice sounding on the surface really needs clarification and this is why we have written contracts, governments, law, etc.
Sure, this wasn’t the case prior to law, but we have law now so…
Sorry! It’s not law, it’s a sOciAl CoNtRacT i learned about it on the wikipeeds. Will you ever forgive me, sensei?
is like breaking the law is better than having no lights dawg
It’s not against the law to not pay your bills. Just don’t expect any electricity, water, a roof, etc.
See also: morality