tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8514697283760344361.post6085691089963894925..comments2023-10-30T05:29:45.972-07:00Comments on Trolley Problem: Why Social Contract arguments are almost always wrong.Shengwuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16630425357806403766noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8514697283760344361.post-46540287684467991672012-02-15T05:02:38.347-08:002012-02-15T05:02:38.347-08:00Thank you, thank you, thank you. The whole "S...Thank you, thank you, thank you. The whole "Social Contract As First Point" thing drives me crazy. Debating in general is full of lazy shorthand, where bastardized terms of legal and political philosophy are dragged into the lingua franca, given only the roughest of definitions and left to fend for themselves. I have had so many conversations that go along the lines of <br />"And my second point was obviously on the social contract." <br />"The social contract doesn't exist." <br />"Well obviously it doesn't REALLY exist, but.."<br />"No, it doesn't exist. Look it up. Read a book sometime."<br />*World shatters*<br /><br />I can see it happening at the moment with certain other phrases that are en vogue as concepts within the world of debating- 'patriarchy', 'false consciousness', and "capitalism is evil" (I paraphrase) are ideas that are thrown about as shorthand in a most frustrating way. It seems unavoidable that when debaters at the top of the game draw from their education and reading and persuasively bring big ideas into debating, there is a trickle-down effect where eventually, even the most inexperienced novice is (ab)using the theory for the purposes of proving their point. Those novices grow up into finalists themselves, and along the way, the ideas that they heard in their youth and have been selectively drawing from over the years become calcified as special debater versions of actual theory. <br />Having been accused of being a little pedantic about this kind of thing, it is gratifying to hear that I am not alone in my irritation!It Beats Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10014522074050115274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8514697283760344361.post-24498292324609557662012-02-10T04:18:14.496-08:002012-02-10T04:18:14.496-08:00Thanks for this understanding making. It is brilli...Thanks for this understanding making. It is brilliantly narrated.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.contracts.in//" rel="nofollow">Contracts</a>jaylen watkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11246576951108532477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8514697283760344361.post-17972813042092375152012-02-10T03:33:11.343-08:002012-02-10T03:33:11.343-08:00Thank you for your insight! This helped me immense...Thank you for your insight! This helped me immensely in understanding the Social Contract. Extremely helpful for developing debaters like me.Tan T.H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13514924061875926115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8514697283760344361.post-59567788252689709872012-02-03T01:23:36.246-08:002012-02-03T01:23:36.246-08:00I think this is your best post so far, very insigh...I think this is your best post so far, very insightful. <br /><br />Unfortunately I would add that though you make a perfectly valid case logically and I completely agree there's a strong chance that refraining from using the term "social contract" does weaken your ability to be persuasive.<br /><br />The golden standard in debate is rational persuasion. The reality is that people are subject to powerful biases. One of such biases is readily accepting something that looks familiar. When one hears "social contract" or "market failure", it instantly bring to mind useful associations. Like it or not (I don't), this may be a dominant effect.<br /><br />Anyway, I never did like this whole social contract business. Glad to see someone is trying to put it to death.Uri Merhavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05308701673994556699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8514697283760344361.post-4077937988738021302012-02-01T12:33:38.904-08:002012-02-01T12:33:38.904-08:00You're right, of course, that hypothetical con...You're right, of course, that hypothetical contractarianism is alive and kicking. I'll add an addendum to that effect.Shengwuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16630425357806403766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8514697283760344361.post-28559191136075979292012-02-01T11:20:36.134-08:002012-02-01T11:20:36.134-08:005 seems to be limited to a fairly perverse use of ...5 seems to be limited to a fairly perverse use of contractarian language where one insists that there is a hypothetical (which is to say, not actual) contract which ought nevertheless be understood as a contract in a strangely literal way (with clauses and whatnot). <br /><br />Now, I'm not saying these sorts of claims and stranger mightn't be found in debating accompanying the words 'social contract' (one example I've treasured enough to remember ran; 'there is a social contract, this means that we all agree not to do what most people find distasteful, most people find bestiality distasteful therefore....') but the idea that a framework of laws, institutions and whathaveyou established according to what a perfectly rational actor would choose under some sort of idealised conditions according to some sort of decision procedure obliges people to obey them (or else at least makes it legitimate to apply punishment for failing to obey them) isn't - sadly - such that "no professional political philosopher" would defend it, it's more like the majority view.<br /><br />I'm in passionate agreement with the claim made in 5.3 - that in most cases suggesting the existence of a 'social contract' in debating is counterproductive - but it would be wrong to imply as you appear to here that social contractarian language is absent from modern political philosophy. (What we might call) 'literal contract'-arianism has be dead since the late 1700s, but 'hypothetical contractarianism' employed in the manner alluded to in 5.3 is alive and kicking as you well know so the combination of the last paragraph from the introduction with 5 absent such a disclaimer seems unfortunate.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06533540721427232602noreply@blogger.com