Relative Morality and the Social Contract

There are many people who hate the idea of relative morality and try to ground morality upon some basis, but I would argue that they're wrong. The forms this basis usually takes is some form of theism: a supernatural being hands down commands that must be followed or punishment will be your fate; you've got statism, or forms of government, which is basically a human created institution based upon theism which replaces gods with man. Within both institutions you have rulers who arbitrarily hand down laws; some are useful while others are useless and some "laws" are simply a matter of "common sense," (no murder or rape for example) which leads me to the third source for morality: our own innate instincts that were crafted by natural selection. Because we our social animals it's only logical that natural selection would craft such adaptations that would allow our species to better cooperate and work together for our survival.

As I've said elsewhere, I am no professional philosopher and I have no formal training in the various philosophies, though I've read some of the basic ideas that have been developed throughout time. Regardless of that, though, I'm going to do my best to prove why I think I'm right and I will attempt to use my reason to come to the most logical conclusion. I consider myself just an average guy; just another human being, trying to figure it all out using the best means at my disposal, which I would consider to be both facts and logic.

Now, the reason I say morality is relative is because I think it's just obvious. Look around at the world and you'll see very clearly this is the case. Throughout the world, and even in the united states, there is no ultimate consensus on what is right or wrong. In some countries it's OK to have sexual relations with a girl under eighteen years of age, while in another it's not. In some cultures having more than one wife is not considered immoral; some individuals view the act of abortion as either a moral or immoral act.

Take the Yanomamo people as one specific example. To them it is not considered a crime or even antisocial to rape women. It is "standard behavior" and "is simply what happens." To these people the act of rape is "standard" behavior, and yet a vast majority of people would surely condemn these acts (The Science of Good & Evil, Michael Shermer, 2004; 90).

As far as religion goes, theists also have no basis for morality (I've argued this here) because neither their god's commands can be followed nor actions emulated because of the contradictory actions and statements their god makes, and like statism, are completely arbitrary. The famous Euthyphro Dilemma points out this problem well.

We now come to our innate morality, but even this is somewhat relative. Even though Homo sapiens have been endowed with certain social instincts that seem to help point us to particular actions (such as no killing, stealing, lying, etc.) these instincts can be ignored and/or suppressed.

While I think that morality is relative, I do agree that human societies in general do agree on a large number of "moral" absolutes such as no killing, stealing, raping, etc. Of course, throughout time, some of these have fallen by the wayside and societies have engaged in these activities, but that just proves my point. Despite our social instincts man will often break these social taboos despite their being in place. Having said that, I suppose I could consider myself a semi- relativist since I think that all, if not the great majority, share the same basic moral beliefs in which I gave a few examples above.

So where does that leave us? Many people think that human societies need some kind of "law giver" (either church or state, or both) in order for these social rules to be not only enforced but developed and handed down. This I do not agree with.

For one, as I've argued elsewhere, in most cases these "law givers" hand down rules for others that they do not follow themselves. Police and politicians (in fact, I'd say the entirety of government) are one example, and even theists of all kinds fail to adhere to many of the moral precepts that they attempt to (or actually achieve to) foist upon others.

Second, I think that humanity should simply follow the rules and conduct that is agreed upon within their societies. There must be consensus, some form of social contract that binds individuals and not this arbitrary power that is held by certain individuals that is more often than not severely abused. The social contract is what binds human agreements and interaction. Instead of someone simply commanding you, or forcing you to obey some standard of conduct you agree to abide by it, which is a much more ethical form of interaction.

As can be seen here, even seemingly intelligent individuals have a hard time seeing the fact that a form of government is not needed in moral matters, and is actually plagued by the same problems that theism is: arbitrariness and hypocrisy.

Like the atheists I have spoken with, they are just like the theists who make the following kinds of statements:

David Aikman in his book The Delusion of Disbelief claims (page 133):

"...it is exceptionally difficult to define 'wicked' in a precise way without reference to some transcendent moral authority of good and evil."

Joe Hinman, the very rude and immature (not to mention illogical) christian apologist, said this about the subject on his blog recently (http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/whats-love-got-to-do-with-it.html):

We have been discussing ethics. My standard attack on atheist versions of ethics is that they can't ground their axioms. Well I amend that to say that the grounding they use is not as strong as belief in God is as a grounding. Its not that they have no grounding at all, but of necessity and logic atheist are basically forced to either result to a relative and discordable grounding, or to ground axioms in something that can't produce an ought. Grounding nature is pretty solid in that it's empriical but it can't produce an "ought" becasue it's inherently ground in the world of what "is." There's no bridge to get form "is" to "ought." Since ethics is about "ought," it's not very good grounding.

It's clear that these individuals want and are asking for such absolutes but I think the plain fact is that they do not exist. Morality is dependant upon doing no harm to others (and even the very word "harm" is debatable) and agreeing to abide by the social contract which is the best way to live together and conduct your individual lives. But I think the foundational principle should be that of the social contract, in an attempt to ensure each persons' freedom. Aside from the social contract and agreeing to do no harm, our social instincts can and do provide at least some kind of basic measure to live up to. Our instincts often compel us to feel sympathy for others and it moves us to want to help them in some way, which is beneficial to society as a whole, but as I said, even these instincts can be suppressed so I would disagree that these social instincts provide an absolute basis for morality. They may be able to push us into doing the "right" thing, the compassionate thing, but they can also push us to do selfish things.

Some criticize the concept of the social contract by stating two main arguments.

1. If a person does not sign said contract does that mean they do not have to follow it?
2. What about animals and emotionally unstable individuals who do not have the mental capacity to understand the contract that they are to sign (in the case of animals, unable to understand at all)?

My rebuttal to argument number 1:

There is no need for an actual physical piece of paper that everyone signs (though I do think that this method is much more effective in binding agreements because a person cannot deny their signature as easily as a spoken agreement [unless it was video taped or recorded in some way]) because one could argue logically and rationally that it is wrong to harm or infringe upon another's rights and property even if someone did not agree to said contract. This is a fact, which is why man in more primitive times attempted to make use of rules and law to avoid such things they knew were wrong. We human beings do not need someone to tell us that physically harming another is wrong. If someone needs to ask, I'd say that individual has some issue with their brain. Aside from that, though, as rational human beings we know that as individuals we do not wish to be harmed in any way, or to have our rights infringed upon, and so we rightfully can project that towards other individuals, who are almost certainly like yourself. It's a matter of respecting each others feelings and desires not to be harmed or violated just as you would not want to be harmed or violated.

My rebuttal to argument number 2:

As with the last example, because animals are known to feel pain and have emotion we can rightfully assume they would not like to be harmed, just as we rightfully assume a fellow human being does not want to be harmed. The same goes for individuals who have diminished mental capacity. Even though they may not understand "right" from "wrong", or contractual agreements, we should rightfully assume that if they could understand those ideas they, too, would feel the same and we should respect what they most likely would want for themselves.

I do not think there is such a thing as a perfect moral system. I think there are many flawed ones, but I think the best one would take into consideration the fact that any action that harms or infringes upon the rights of another is wrong. This is why I think the social contract is one of the best moral/social systems that is available. This avoids the issue of the vote that is often used towards such disastrous ends today. You have a majority (theists) using their numbers to suppress the rights of a minority (homosexuals), and stem cell research in which it's ban (from the W. Bush administration) has just recently been lifted by the current administration of Obama. In the case of the social contract, because the minorities would obviously not agree to having their rights taken away, they would not agree to such a contract and their freedoms would be preserved. Such examples would be speed limits, gay marriage, having money taken (in the form of taxes) for causes that you do not agree with, among countless other examples.

Like everything else in life, nothing is perfect and this includes social systems, but what we can attempt is to be fair and logical in our approaches, which I don't think the "moral" and legal systems of theism and statism stand up to those two concepts at all.

There is also no such thing (with the exception of some of the examples I gave earlier) as a "universal" morality, and each place adopts what they consider "good" and "bad." Each group drafts their own 'social contract' and deals with those who break that contract in which ever way the society sees fit.

Because of the relativity of morality I think the idea of the social contract is one of the best means to organize a society by because it avoids many of the problems of having a majority (or even a single dictator) rule over others and punish them for things that cause no harm to others. The next question that must be answered is exactly how that system will be developed, but I think once the right question is posed (how to protect the freedom and rights of all individuals) the answers will come in time.