Morality and the Social Contract

[2ndRateMind]

Hey y'all.

I'm studying college level philosophy ('A' level for fellow Brits). The first topic is 'why should I be moral?'. The first approach considered is the idea of a social contract being in everyone's best interest, if we are to avoid a 'life ... solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'. (Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651)

I though you all may like to comment. Some questions that occur are: what guarantee is there that a social contract accurately reflects morality as perceived by the various contractees? Is obedience to a social contract necessarily moral, or are there circumstances might it be moral to disobey a social contract? Given that a social contract approach appeals to self-interest, rather than divine law, altruism, development of virtue or the greatest utility, does it give an account of morality at all?

Strikes me that we do have a tacit social agreement as to what constitutes appropriate behaviour in civilised nations, and most people abide by it. Question is, seeing as most people aren't philosophers, is it's relationship to morality anything more than accidental?

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[billwald]

Socrates thought about this and concluded that moral people are happier than immoral people.

 

[Kalimar]

Socrates thought about this and concluded that moral people are happier than immoral people.

You might be referencing Plato, the "works" of Socrates are the works of Plato. Plato's Republic held that the Good itself was a form beyond being, a form which illuminated all other forms and allowed us humans to access truth -- absolute, eternal and universal bodies of knowledge.

To the original poster, please note that most social contracts are formed on the basis of secular agreement to satisfy secular humans. The social contract goes anywhere from Hobbes believing that humans are fundamentally evil to Rousseau holding that humans were once fundamentally good in a pre-linguistic/pre-technological level and the establishment of property and law corrupted us.

One needn't be moral to accept a social contract, even if that social contract is constructed on morals. It is an understanding of mutual agreement, or consent of being governed. As a Brit, I'm sure you're familiar with Locke's adaptation of the social contract theory.

 

[quatona]

Hey y'all.

I'm studying college level philosophy ('A' level for fellow Brits). The first topic is 'why should I be moral?'.

What´s the definition of "moral" for purposes of this discussion?

The first approach considered is the idea of a social contract being in everyone's best interest, if we are to avoid a 'life ... solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'. (Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651)

That sounds like a good argument, for a start.

I though you all may like to comment. Some questions that occur are: what guarantee is there that a social contract accurately reflects morality as perceived by the various contractees?

Did Hobbes postulate that it should?

Is obedience to a social contract necessarily moral, or are there circumstances might it be moral to disobey a social contract?

It seems to me that your use of the term "moral" is increasingly unclear.
Above you used it as a term for opinions of individuals that the societal regulations do and/or should reflect. Now you are using it on a meta-level: What to do if the social contract does not reflect your opinion?
It also sounds like you expect "morality" to be something that solves all problems.

The question for your definition of "moral" that you want this thread to be based on becomes more and more urgent.
Plus, I can´t seem to make much sense of the wording "obedience to a contract".

Given that a social contract approach appeals to self-interest, rather than divine law, altruism, development of virtue or the greatest utility, does it give an account of morality at all?

Depends on what you mean when saying "morality"?
On another note, appeals to divine law, altruism, virtue etc. don´t do away with the problem that not all people are in agreement with all parts of a social contract. After all, people believe in different gods and have different ideas as to what "altruism" looks like and what is virtuous.

Strikes me that we do have a tacit social agreement as to what constitutes appropriate behaviour in civilised nations, and most people abide by it.

Yes, tacit as well as outspoken social agreements.
Again "abide by an agreement" is a strange wording, imo.

Question is, seeing as most people aren't philosophers, is it's relationship to morality anything more than accidental?

I don´t understand the question. Maybe providing your definition of "morality" would help.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Ha, don't you just hate it when people want cast-iron definitions of words we use every day and that everyone understands? You just know the whole discussion is about to degenerate into nit-picking. No, I'm not going to define the word moral. The vernacular meaning will do just fine, for the moment. I will give you a clue, though.

As I understand the various positions, at this early stage in my studies, the situation is something like this: According to the utilitarians, moral behaviour is the set of all actions conducive to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. According to deontologists, moral behaviour is the set of all actions God approves of. According to the social contract approach, moral behaviour is the set of all actions society approves of. According to virtue theory, moral behaviour is the set of all actions conducive to the development of virtue and therefore to eudaimonia. According to Kant, moral behaviour is the set of all actions performed out of duty and in line with the categorical imperative.

The vernacular meaning of moral is a set of actions which overlaps all these previous sets, without necessarily including any of them totally, and possibly including some extra activities as well.

I hope this is sufficiently helpful. It's the best I can do, and I welcome any constructive criticism.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[quatona]

Ha, don't you just hate it when people want cast-iron definitions of words we use every day and that everyone understands?

Personally, I not only like but downright demand that a term that has the keyposition in a question that someone wants to be philosophically approached is properly defined.
If you want everyday talk the hope that everyone uses a similar vague definition of a word may be sufficient, though.
I personally don´t use the term "morality" every day - in fact I never use it unless someone else makes it the subject of discussion.
In my obervation, people use this term for very different concepts.
Often I don´t understand at all what they mean.
The way you used this word here left me clueless as to what you mean when saying "moral".

You just know the whole discussion is about to degenerate into nit-picking.

If you feel that asking for your definition of the keyterm in your question is nit-picking I doubt that philosophy is for you.

No, I'm not going to define the word moral.

That´s your prerogative. It is, however, my prerogative not to discuss a notion that you are not willing to explain.

The vernacular meaning will do just fine, for the moment.

I don´t think it is, for purposes of a philosophical discussion.
What is the vernacular meaning of "moral", in your opinion?

As I understand the various positions, at this early stage in my studies, the situation is something like this: According to the utilitarians, moral behaviour is the set of all actions conducive to the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

Yes, that´s about a correct paraphrasing.

According to deontologists, moral behaviour is the set of all actions God approves of.

That´s about right, too.

According to the social contract approach, moral behaviour is the set of all actions society approves of.

Could you cite or refer to the author or a protagonist of this notion?
As it reads here it is not very clear to me. Society is no a homogenous entity, to begin with. So whose approval exactly constitutes "morality" in this model. Also, the terrm "contract" points to an agreement of everyone involved - which pretty much excludes the problem it is meant to solve: what if people disagree?

According to virtue theory, moral behaviour is the set of all actions conducive to the development of virtue and therefore to eudaimonia.

Ok.

According to Kant, moral behaviour is the set of all actions performed out of duty and in line with the categorical imperative.

I think that´s not entirely accurate (or at least misunderstandable), but sufficiently close.

Now, we already have five entirely different meanings of the word "moral".
Let´s make sure to keep those different concepts apart, to not fall for equivocations and to not impose the paradigms of one of these concepts onto another one.

The vernacular meaning of moral is a set of actions which overlaps all these previous sets, without necessarily including any of them, totally, and possibly including some extra activities as well.

I suspect that the vernacular user of the word "moral" is typically unaware of the multitude of concepts that this term is used for and rather uses it loosely for every statement concerning what people "should" do that he agrees with.

I hope this is sufficiently helpful.

No, sorry, not really. I didn´t ask for a summary of the various concepts that "moral" is used for, but for the concept that you would like this discussion to work from. To discuss the multitude of concepts simultaneously just because they happen to use the same word is likely to result in confusion rather than in greater clarity.

I

 

[2ndRateMind]

Give us a break, Quatona. I’m a week into an introductory philosophy course, and you want me to define the word moral? Better minds than mine have been discussing this for centuries, since before even Plato, and we have yet to arrive at a universally accepted, definitive answer. Yet, we each have a sufficient grasp on the word to use it meaningfully to assess behaviour.

One of the interesting things about humanity is that we have the cognitive capacity to process ‘fuzzy’ logic, incomplete information, probabilities and possibilities, and imprecise categories, to the extent that we get through life quite well without precisely articulated definitions.

If you feel that asking for your definition of the keyterm in your question is nit-picking I doubt that philosophy is for you.

Possibly you’re right. I’m a strategist by inclination, rather than a tactician. The things that excite me about philosophy are the grand ideas, the weltanschaaungen, the encompassing conceptual schema. I’m much less interested by criticism for criticisms sake. It could be that there is no place for that excitement within western academic circles, but if there isn’t, then I think a certain respect for the awesome creation that confronts us has gone with it.

Could you cite or refer to the author or a protagonist of this notion?

Hobbes is the classic protagonist. I haven’t read Leviathan, but I am informed by my text-books that Hobbes thought that morality subsisted entirely within social codes. In his hypothetical ‘state of nature’ therefore, there was no such thing as moral constraint, and each was motivated completely by self-interest. In his view, the result was bound to be a ceaseless ‘war of every man against every man’.

Society is no a homogenous entity, to begin with. So whose approval exactly constitutes "morality" in this model. Also, the terrm "contract" points to an agreement of everyone involved - which pretty much excludes the problem it is meant to solve: what if people disagree?

Exactly.

...I didn´t ask for a summary of the various concepts that "moral" is used for, but for the concept that you would like this discussion to work from. To discuss the multitude of concepts simultaneously just because they happen to use the same word is likely to result in confusion rather than in greater clarity.

Well then, if this direction is the one you would prefer, perhaps we could use the thread to try to derive a definition of the word moral that builds from the various notions we have to hand, and consolidates and unifies them into a rigorous conception of the term – ideally one that will resist some of the more obvious criticisms routinely levelled at the individual approaches I listed.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind

 

[Kalimar]

According to deontologists, moral behaviour is the set of all actions God approves of.

No, deontology is duty based ethics. From where is the source of their duty? Reason. The early "deontologists" were the only ones to consider the source of duties from God. Kant, and all subsequent deontologists after Kant have removed God and placed reason.

 

[2ndRateMind]

No, deontology is duty based ethics. From where is the source of their duty? Reason. The early "deontologists" were the only ones to consider the source of duties from God. Kant, and all subsequent deontologists after Kant have removed God and placed reason.

Thankyou for that correction.

Perhaps I ought to replace the slot in the above description with Divine Command ethics?

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[2ndRateMind]

To the original poster, please note that most social contracts are formed on the basis of secular agreement to satisfy secular humans. The social contract goes anywhere from Hobbes believing that humans are fundamentally evil to Rousseau holding that humans were once fundamentally good in a pre-linguistic/pre-technological level and the establishment of property and law corrupted us.

One needn't be moral to accept a social contract, even if that social contract is constructed on morals. It is an understanding of mutual agreement, or consent of being governed. As a Brit, I'm sure you're familiar with Locke's adaptation of the social contract theory.

Hiya Kalimar, I haven't been ignoring you. Just wriggling like a netted fish trying to escape defining morality.

I don't think Hobbes thought humanity is intrinsically evil, in the way some Christians seem to. He just supposed they were essentially self-interested. There are times, admittedly, when this is evil, but there are times when it is good. Prudence, for example, is a self-interested virtue.

The trouble with Hobbes' analysis, so far as I can see, is that he thinks morality is whatever society agrees it to be. That's fine, so long as the social contract is founded on morals, as you suggest. But there is always the possibility that it won't be, and that seems to be where we need to go beyond Hobbes, and look for an explanation of morality that transcends expedient, tacit agreement, and see if we can't find some other criteria that makes the moral, moral.

I take from my text book one further thought. The social contract approach presupposes moral obligation. If it is 'moral' to opt into a social contract, that appeal to morality must be derived from outside the contract or the whole thing becomes viciously recursive. It becomes moral because the contract says so, and the contract says so because it is moral.

So it seems social contract theories cannot explain the concept of moral obligation since they presuppose it in saying that we ought to keep the promise to stick to the covenant...Someone who doesn't already accept the need for moral obligation cannot make sense of the idea of being obliged to keep the contract.

Jones et al, An Introduction to Philosophy, Hodder, London, 2008

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind

 

[Kalimar]

I don't think Hobbes thought humanity is intrinsically evil, in the way some Christians seem to. He just supposed they were essentially self-interested. There are times, admittedly, when this is evil, but there are times when it is good. Prudence, for example, is a self-interested virtue.

Yeah, I rethought after posting that and I'll agree with you that for Hobbes, humans were self-interested, and it was the self-interest which led to the famous quotation you provided in the original post.

The trouble with Hobbes' analysis, so far as I can see, is that he thinks morality is whatever society agrees it to be. That's fine, so long as the social contract is founded on morals, as you suggest. But there is always the possibility that it won't be, and that seems to be where we need to go beyond Hobbes, and look for an explanation of morality that transcends expedient, tacit agreement, and see if we can't find some other criteria that makes the moral, moral.

Well, for Hobbes, his strict materialism got him into some trouble with the church, and that for him, morality was often unnecessary, superfluous or just disingenuous. This does not mean morals are out of the question for Hobbes however, because if the leviathan determined there to be a necessary system of morals, then that system of morals was to be viewed necessary, just as it follows that one and one are two. The leviathan was really just some supreme "rational agent" which controlled individuals such that their self-interest was channeled into a working state. This was done through the public sphere, and not the private sphere.

Bottom line though, morals weren't necessary in Hobbes' state, only contingencies.

I take from my text book one further thought. The social contract approach presupposes moral obligation. If it is 'moral' to opt into a social contract, that appeal to morality must be derived from outside the contract or the whole thing becomes viciously recursive. It becomes moral because the contract says so, and the contract says so because it is moral.

Yes, if you enter into the state you've submitted to the state a "moral" obligation to perform the functions of the state in so much as that you've taken something from the state (security in the instance of Hobbes) and so you must provide what the state requires you to provide.

The first modern instantiation of the social contract theory is in Plato's Crito where Socrates uses it as one justification not to leave Athens.

 

[quatona]

Give us a break, Quatona. I’m a week into an introductory philosophy course, and you want me to define the word moral?

Sure, if you make it the keyterm of your question I want you to define it. Else I don´t know what you are asking about.
I have been through countless discussions about such questions, and all I am trying to do with my initial questions is to prevent that which typically happens in them: People talk about different concepts and miscommunicate thoroughly.
I´m trying to help. If this is unwelcome I will gladly leave this thread and wish you good luck with it.

Better minds than mine have been discussing this for centuries, since before even Plato, and we have yet to arrive at a universally accepted, definitive answer.

There is no definitive answer to semantics questions. You ask the question, you define the term. This doesn´t require a great mind, it just requires a clear idea what you want to talk about.

Yet, we each have a sufficient grasp on the word to use it meaningfully to assess behaviour.

Firstly, I don´t have such a grasp, and the knowledge that the word is used in countless different meanings doesn´t help getting such a grasp.
Secondly, even if I would use the word in a specific meaning it wouldn´t help with a meaningful conversation. In order for a term to be useful for communication we have to make sure that the meaning in which the participants use it are sufficiently similar.

One of the interesting things about humanity is that we have the cognitive capacity to process ‘fuzzy’ logic, incomplete information, probabilities and possibilities, and imprecise categories, to the extent that we get through life quite well without precisely articulated definitions.

Guess what? I get through life without the category "morality" altogether quite fine.
Philosophy, however, (at least in my opinion) is about precise thinking.
If you want to base this discussion on incomplete information, imprecise categories and fuzzy logic that at best do not prevent us from going through life with major problems I personally am not interested. Too often I have experienced where such "philosophical" discussions end: exactly where they started.
"Divine prescription" and "social contract", for examples, are concept that have nothing to do with each other. Persons who discuss as though they had - just because people use the same label for it can be reliably predicted to miscommunicate. Just like persons who discuss "fans" but one of them talks about sports enthusiastics and the other one about ventilator.

The things that excite me about philosophy are the grand ideas, the weltanschaaungen, the encompassing conceptual schema.

Weltanschauungen. (Just because I happpen to be German).
I share this fascination.

I’m much less interested by criticism for criticisms sake.

Neither am I.

It could be that there is no place for that excitement within western academic circles, but if there isn’t, then I think a certain respect for the awesome creation that confronts us has gone with it.

Be that as it may - I am a bit clueless what this observation has to do with my statements.

Hobbes is the classic protagonist. I haven’t read Leviathan, but I am informed by my text-books that Hobbes thought that morality subsisted entirely within social codes. In his hypothetical ‘state of nature’ therefore, there was no such thing as moral constraint, and each was motivated completely by self-interest. In his view, the result was bound to be a ceaseless ‘war of every man against every man’.

And he calls "war of every man against every man" a "social contract"?

Well then, if this direction is the one you would prefer, perhaps we could use the thread to try to derive a definition of the word moral that builds from the various notions we have to hand, and consolidates and unifies them into a rigorous conception of the term – ideally one that will resist some of the more obvious criticisms routinely levelled at the individual approaches I listed.

I hate to come across as pessimistic, but in view of the fact that the various definitions are derived from completely different (often contradicting) world views and at the same time are typically used to support those worldviews I don´t hold my breath. In fact, I find this not only a very ambitious endeavour, but one that´s bound to fail for obvious reasons.

Anyways, good luck!

 

[2ndRateMind]

Alright, Quatona, I give up. I'll have a bash at defining moral: It is the set of actions that are good for the individual and/or good for society, both by intention and in terms of the impact of consequences. I am aware of the scope for conflicts of interest here, not only between the individual and society but between the different levels of them both. Thus, ideally, a moral action will be good for an individual spiritually, psychologically and physically, and good for society at political, economic and cultural segments, and at family, neighbourhood, regional, national and international levels. Where there is a conflict, you just have to weigh up the benefits and disbenefits, and make an appropriate judgement call.

Please don't ask me to define the word 'good'.

And he calls "war of every man against every man" a "social contract"?

No, Hobbes felt that this ceaseless conflict was what would be the case without a social contract, enforced by an absolute power placed with the monarch. In his defense, it should be pointed out that he witnessed the country divided family against family, and brother against brother, during the English Civil War.

Thank you for your help, and apologies for the spelling mistake.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[quatona]

Alright, Quatona, I give up.

You almost make it sound like we´re in a fight or something.

I'll have a bash at defining moral: It is the set of actions that are good for the individual and/or good for society, both by intention and in terms of the impact of consequences. I am aware of the scope for conflicts of interest here, not only between the individual and society but between the different levels of them both. Thus, ideally, a moral action will be good for an individual spiritually, psychologically and physically, and good for society at political, economic and cultural segments, and at family, neighbourhood, regional, national and international levels. Where there is a conflict, you just have to weigh up the benefits and disbenefits, and make an appropriate judgement call.

Thank you.

There are even more conflicts: There are conflicts between the benefits for one person and the disbenefit for another person, there are conflicts between certain benefits of an action for e.g. society and certain disbenefits of the same action for the same society. There may be conflicts between the same action being beneficial for a person physically and disbeneficial for the same person psychologically.

It also needs to be pointed out that there are often conflicts between intention and results, particularly if acknowledging that concerning the results of an action we can at best make guesses - seeing that an action is a co-causing factor for countless (unknown and unpredictable) results, and that a certain result usually has countless co-causing factors.

We also better not forget that ratio benefits/disbenefits often changes significantly, depending at which point in time we try to determine them.


In view of all these conflicts the most important question becomes: What are good criteria to apply when trying to weigh up the (often only assumed or guessed) benefits and disbenefits of a certain action? (Which would be sort of a meta-moral question.)

Seeing all these problems, I personally am inclined to think that the "moral" would be more useful as a signifier for being willing to consider and weigh up potential results and impacts of one´s actions - as opposed to being a term used for judging the result.

Of course, there´s an even greater problem. Determining what´s moral (i.e. whether the benefits of an action´s impact outweigh the disbenefits, according to your definition) requires me to have a set of values based on which I make these judgements. IOW: While a certain set of values enable me to engage in considerations about the benefits/disbenefits of an action and their ratio, we now face the question:

What are good values? (Again a meta-moral question, if you will.)

And the answer to the question "Is this action moral? (i.e. "Do the benefits of this action outweigh the disbenefits?", according to your definition) depends entirely on our answer to the meta-moral question above.

Please don't ask me to define the word 'good'.

Well, this question is sure to become very important sooner or later in this discussion, but for the purpose of getting an idea what you want to talk about when saying "moral" your definition is helpful even without being specific about the values based on which someone considers something good/bad or beneficial/harmful.

(I am, however, tempted to ask for your definition of the word "spiritual" - at least if this concept plays an important part in your definition of "moral", that is.)

Now that you have thankfully provided the definition of "moral" you want to work from ('the overall ratio of benefits and disbenefits of a certain action'), let me revisit your thread questions:

what guarantee is there that a social contract accurately reflects morality as perceived by the various contractees?

Seeing that nobody has been even explicitly asked for their meta-moral stances, and also seeing that nobody has been explicitly asked whether they agree with this "contract" it´s safe to say that there is not only no such guarantee but also that there is not a single person whose moral and meta-moral ideas the laws and customs reflect perfectly or accurately.
On another note, I think the term "contract" is a misnomer here.

Is obedience to a social contract necessarily moral, or are there circumstances might it be moral to disobey a social contract?

That depends entirely on the person´s meta-moral values. If, in his opinion, the assumed disbenefits of the action prescribed by law and customs outweigh the benefits, it would be - if applying your definition - immoral to obey the law and customs in this case.

Given that a social contract approach appeals to self-interest, rather than divine law, altruism, development of virtue or the greatest utility, does it give an account of morality at all?

Again, that depends on the meta-moral values a person subscribes to.Personally, I can´t manage to see a dichotomy between self-interest and altruism or the development of virtue. If I adopt altruism and/or the development virtues as meta-moral values I do that because it is in my best own interest.

Not being a believer I don´t know how to figure in "divine law", particularly not so if the criterion is the overall ratio of benefits/disbenefits.
But since you have brought up the question whether a certain set of laws and prescriptions accurately reflects the moral ideas of the persons involved, I am inclined to add the questions:
What guarantee is there that divine law accurately reflects morality as perceived by the persons who are expected to obey it?
and
Is obedience to divine law necessarily moral, or are there circumstances might it be moral to disobey a divine law?

Thank you for your help, and apologies for the spelling mistake.

No need to apologize - I don´t find spelling mistakes offensive.

 

[quatona]

Alright, Quatona, I give up.

You almost make it sound like we´re in a fight or something.

I'll have a bash at defining moral: It is the set of actions that are good for the individual and/or good for society, both by intention and in terms of the impact of consequences. I am aware of the scope for conflicts of interest here, not only between the individual and society but between the different levels of them both. Thus, ideally, a moral action will be good for an individual spiritually, psychologically and physically, and good for society at political, economic and cultural segments, and at family, neighbourhood, regional, national and international levels. Where there is a conflict, you just have to weigh up the benefits and disbenefits, and make an appropriate judgement call.

Thank you.

There are even more conflicts: There are conflicts between the benefits for one person and the disbenefit for another person, there are conflicts between certain benefits of an action for e.g. society and certain disbenefits of the same action for the same society. There may be conflicts between the same action being beneficial for a person physically and disbeneficial for the same person psychologically. Etc. etc.

It also needs to be pointed out that there are often conflicts between intention and results, particularly if acknowledging that concerning the results of an action we can at best make guesses - seeing that an action is a co-causing factor for countless (unknown and unpredictable) results, and that a certain result usually has countless co-causing factors.
Personally, I have no idea how to weigh up intentions and results against each other. They are two completely separate issues, for me.

We also better not forget that ratio benefits/disbenefits often changes significantly, depending at which point in time we try to determine them.


In view of all these conflicts, uncertainties the most important question becomes: What are good criteria to apply when trying to weigh up the (often only assumed or guessed) benefits and disbenefits of a certain action? (Which would be sort of a meta-moral question.)

Seeing all these problems, I personally am inclined to think that the "moral" would be more useful as a signifier for being willing to consider and weigh up potential results and impacts of one´s actions - as opposed to being a term used for judging the result.

Of course, there´s an even greater problem. Determining what´s moral (i.e. whether the benefits of an action´s impact outweigh the disbenefits, according to your definition) requires me to have a set of values based on which I make these judgements. IOW: While a certain set of values enable me to engage in considerations about the benefits/disbenefits of an action and their ratio, we now face the question:

What are good values? (Again a meta-moral question, if you will.)

And the answer to the question "Is this action moral? (i.e. "Do the benefits of this action outweigh the disbenefits?", according to your definition) depends entirely on our answer to the meta-moral question above.

Please don't ask me to define the word 'good'.

Well, this question is sure to become very important sooner or later in this discussion, but for the purpose of getting an idea what you want to talk about when saying "moral" your definition is helpful even without being specific about the values based on which someone considers something good/bad or beneficial/harmful.

(I am, however, tempted to ask for your definition of the word "spiritual" - at least if this concept plays an important part in your definition of "moral", that is.)

Now that you have thankfully provided the definition of "moral" you want to work from ('the overall ratio of benefits and disbenefits of a certain action'), let me revisit your thread questions:

what guarantee is there that a social contract accurately reflects morality as perceived by the various contractees?

Seeing that nobody has been even explicitly asked for their meta-moral stances, and also seeing that nobody has been explicitly asked whether they agree with this "contract" it´s safe to say that there is not only no such guarantee but also that there is not a single person whose moral and meta-moral ideas the laws and customs reflect perfectly or accurately.
On another note, I think the term "contract" is a misnomer here.

Is obedience to a social contract necessarily moral, or are there circumstances might it be moral to disobey a social contract?

That depends entirely on the person´s meta-moral values. If, in his opinion, the assumed disbenefits of the action prescribed by law and customs outweigh the benefits, it would be - if applying your definition - immoral to obey the law and customs in this case.

Given that a social contract approach appeals to self-interest, rather than divine law, altruism, development of virtue or the greatest utility, does it give an account of morality at all?

Again, that depends on the meta-moral values a person subscribes to.Personally, I can´t manage to see a dichotomy between self-interest and altruism or the development of virtue. If I adopt altruism and/or the development virtues as meta-moral values I do that because it is in my best own interest.

Not being a believer I don´t know how to figure in "divine law", particularly not so if the criterion is the overall ratio of benefits/disbenefits.
But since you have brought up the question whether a certain set of laws and prescriptions accurately reflects the moral ideas of the persons involved, I am inclined to add the questions:
What guarantee is there that divine law accurately reflects morality as perceived by the persons who are expected to obey it?
and
Is obedience to divine law necessarily moral, or are there circumstances might it be moral to disobey a divine law?

Thank you for your help, and apologies for the spelling mistake.

No need to apologize - I don´t find spelling mistakes offensive.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Well, thanks for that Quatona. I am encouraged by the fact that most of your comments in respect of my tentative definition are criticisms of practicality rather than principle. It is certainly true that at the more developed end of the spectrum there are complex playoffs of benefit/disbenefit to be considered, but the reality of the world we face is one where we fortunate can engage in philosophical discussion over this technically advanced webnet thing, for it’s own sake, while fully one fifth of the world’s population live on less than a dollar a day, and want for access to reliable sources of food and clean water, and lack sanitation, primary medical care and basic education. Considered in this light, I think the ratios of benefits to disbenefits are so stark that ‘morality’ becomes more obvious than your response would make it seem. I think you are right to point up the difficulties, and I would like to answer you fully with well thought out strategies for coping with them or resolving them. Perhaps I will be able to in due course. It may even be the book I write, once I have served my apprenticeship, got some exams under my belt, and had a chance to work through the issues involved.

In my short term defence, however, I would just like to mention a couple of things. Firstly, I don’t think this kind of ‘goodness’ calculus is that far removed from the vernacular meaning of morality. Secondly, it is sympathetic to, or can be deduced from, or is consistent with, the various shades of morality proffered by the approaches I listed. For example, if God is good, as He allegedly is, and loves us, as He allegedly does, then He would only command what is in our best interests. Or, if eudaimonia is good for us, any of us or all of us, that can be factored into the consideration. Or, if a life lived compliant to the dictates of reason is more valuable than one subject to the whim of every passing emotion, that also works within the constraint I have outlined.

I must confess, I am a little surprised, and also delighted, to find you on a Christian board. I am sure you have good reasons to unbelieve, but don’t think for one moment I am going to enter into a discussion about the spiritual dimension of human existence with you. In my experience, as an atheist and as a believer who has discussed with atheists, that dimension is entirely transparent to those without faith. But your other questions may be amusing to answer, and receive your feedback on:

What guarantee is there that divine law accurately reflects morality as perceived by the persons who are expected to obey it?

None. Assuming God is omniscient, which many people do, He is in a position to decide what is objectively good, and objectively evil. The rest of us mortal coils can only hope to approximate His judgement, from our variously subjective points of view. As we grow older, and hopefully wiser, we tend to see the mistakes of our youth, and thus are in some position to discriminate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ codes and systems of ethics, but the idea that humanity will ever completely achieve total consistency with divine law, is I think, a vain hope. It is a thought that makes for tolerance.

Is obedience to divine law necessarily moral, or are there circumstances might it be moral to disobey a divine law?

Well, starting from the same position of divine omniscience, with a bit of omnibenevolence thrown in, then yes, I would say that divine law must be good, and completely, ultimately, objectively so. It must be moral. There would be no circumstances under which, knowing divine law, it would be moral to disobey it. The catch is in the phrase, ‘knowing divine law’. I don’t think we do, or ever will. So there may be circumstances when it could be moral to disobey the prescriptions of this or that religion, or clergyman, or acolyte.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind.

 

[quatona]

Well, thanks for that Quatona. I am encouraged by the fact that most of your comments in respect of my tentative definition are criticisms of practicality rather than principle.

Well, I am a pragmatist. The mere fact that a certain endeavour is the attempt to reduce an infinitely complex subject to a "beneficial - yes or no?" matter, and thus practically doomed to fail is reason enough for me to be very skeptic.
On another note I tend to think that the subjectivity that you cannot escape (not even if adding meta- to meta-levels) poses a problem for the subject that is as principal as it can get.

It is certainly true that at the more developed end of the spectrum there are complex playoffs of benefit/disbenefit to be considered,

Sorry for interrupting you in the middle of the sentence, but I vehemently disagree. A simple, everyday, down-to-earth question like "do I spend my limited time writing a response to 2ndRateMind or do I call a friend I haven´t spoken to in a long time" already contains all the problems and conflicts.

but the reality of the world we face is one where we fortunate can engage in philosophical discussion over this technically advanced webnet thing, for it’s own sake, while fully one fifth of the world’s population live on less than a dollar a day, and want for access to reliable sources of food and clean water, and lack sanitation, primary medical care and basic education. Considered in this light, I think the ratios of benefits to disbenefits are so stark that ‘morality’ becomes more obvious than your response would make it seem.

Not that I have any doubts that the unequal distribution of wealth and the exploitation of so called third world countries are major problems that call for solutions - but that does not really help me with determining the benefit/disbenefit of my actions.
Even a very simple problem like an educated decision whether to buy milk in bottles or tetrapacks is more beneficial (or less unbeneficial, if you will) requires me to do excessive studies of countless factors, and in the end I still can´t be sure. I would have to be an expert in countless fields.

I think you are right to point up the difficulties, and I would like to answer you fully with well thought out strategies for coping with them or resolving them. Perhaps I will be able to in due course. It may even be the book I write, once I have served my apprenticeship, got some exams under my belt, and had a chance to work through the issues involved.

Congratulations! If memory serves, before you decided to hide your age it said 20 (correct me if I´m wrong). You have achieved quite a lot already.
Please make sure to notify me once your book is available. Until then I am afraid I have to treat your announcement with the skepticism that I would treat every promise of this kind coming from an anonymous on the internet. Please don´t take it personally.
I´m a bit surprised for another reason, as well: Earlier in our conversation you pointed out that greater minds than you had pursued this very goal throughout centuries, with no avail.

In my short term defence, however, I would just like to mention a couple of things. Firstly, I don’t think this kind of ‘goodness’ calculus is that far removed from the vernacular meaning of morality.

There is no such universally agreed upon vernacular moral take. If there were such, the problem of morality wouldn´t be a problem, in the first place. There aren´t even agreed upon meta-moral values.

Secondly, it is sympathetic to, or can be deduced from, or is consistent with, the various shades of morality proffered by the approaches I listed.

In which case it is a little irritating that those different approaches (and partly even different persons who work from the same approach) arrive at different notions.

For example, if God is good, as He allegedly is, and loves us, as He allegedly does, then He would only command what is in our best interests.

I´m sure you know how it goes with those commands ascribed to gods:
If people feel this command can´t be beneficial (e.g. if the alleged god commands genocide or such), they basically have two options. Either they conclude that this can´t be a commandment from god, or they conclude that our understanding is so incomplete (and god´s is so complete) that they should simply have faith that the action in question is beneficial even if it is not intelligible to them.

Or, if eudaimonia is good for us, any of us or all of us, that can be factored into the consideration.

Eudamonia is good for us by ts very definition. We may not agree, though, what eudamonia is.
I have no doubt that we all agree that good actions are good. We just disagree which actions are good. Therein lies the practical problem, and you don´t solve it by adding abstract terms that merely are synonyms for "good".

Or, if a life lived compliant to the dictates of reason is more valuable than one subject to the whim of every passing emotion, that also works within the constraint I have outlined.

This won´t, however, convince anyone who values emotionality over reason.

I must confess, I am a little surprised, and also delighted, to find you on a Christian board.

I´m not sure I understand what´s so surprising about my presence here, but the delight to find conversation partners here is mutual.

I am sure you have good reasons to unbelieve,

That is a funny word - "unbelieve". :chuckle:

but don’t think for one moment I am going to enter into a discussion about the spiritual dimension of human existence with you.

I would be glad if we could avoid this, too. However, you were the one bringing up "spirituality", and I thought it would be a good idea to make sure I can ignore this to me meaningless aspect altogether.
Because if this is an important factor in your approach this might already pose a severe obstacle for aligning our ideas of what´s beneficial and what isn´t.

In my experience, as an atheist and as a believer who has discussed with atheists, that dimension is entirely transparent to those without faith.

I´m not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. It sounds to me like you are telling me what I think, know and what´s transparent to me. I would find that pretty bold. If this is not what you meant to say, please correct me and try to reword your statement so that I understand it better.

But your other questions may be amusing to answer, and receive your feedback on:

None. Assuming God is omniscient, which many people do, He is in a position to decide what is objectively good, and objectively evil. The rest of us mortal coils can only hope to approximate His judgement, from our variously subjective points of view. As we grow older, and hopefully wiser, we tend to see the mistakes of our youth, and thus are in some position to discriminate between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ codes and systems of ethics, but the idea that humanity will ever completely achieve total consistency with divine law, is I think, a vain hope.

Please see my objections earlier in this post.

I am honestly happy that you are not the kind of guy who confronts me with empty truth claims. I never know how to deal with them. The fact that you are aware that we cannot know how a possibly existing god might judge things makes this discussion easier for me.
OTOH, this leaves us with the very (subjective) means, methods and devices of deciding what´s beneficial or not that we use anyways, so the entire god idea is practically irrelevant

It is a thought that makes for tolerance.

I must say, I find the benefits and the necessity of tolerance to be way more parsimonously intelligible without the assumption of a god existing. Then again, those persons who are not in favour of tolerance can be found among god believers as well as non-believers. I would be surprised, amazed and delighted to see your book convincing them of the necessity and benefits of tolerance.

Well, starting from the same position of divine omniscience, with a bit of omnibenevolence thrown in, then yes, I would say that divine law must be good, and completely, ultimately, objectively so.

What method do you propose? Are we to determine what comes from god by applying our individual understanding of what is "good", or are we to determine what is "good" by listening to what the allegedly existing gods are reported to have said and done? Or are we to do both circularly and mutually?

It must be moral. There would be no circumstances under which, knowing divine law, it would be moral to disobey it.

Yes, if we knew it, and if we a priori assume that god must be good.
Personally, I always work from my ideas what´s good. Thus, an alleged god who disagrees with me is either not good or doesn´t exist.

The catch is in the phrase, ‘knowing divine law’. I don’t think we do, or ever will.

So there may be circumstances when it could be moral to disobey the prescriptions of this or that religion, or clergyman, or acolyte.

Which puts us on square one. The idea that a god exists doesn´t help with answering the question. We can ignore it for purposes of these discussions. However, a believer who - unlike you - thinks he knows what god prescripts for us are and postulates following them regardlessly will not agree with us.
Hopefully your book will have the power to convince him.

 

[billwald]

Seems obvious, at least to me, that the Mosaic Covenant is a social contract for people living in Israel. There isn't a single verse in Exo thru Deu that refers to one's status in the next life.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Hobbes thought of the social contract as one reason among many to be moral, not the sole reason. The social contract simply consisted in the basis of his Leviathan, the all-sovereign state, not in any metaphysical reason for morality.