The Agreement

[shadowmage36]

That is a semantics point. If he considers himself the highest authority of his own morals and judgement, then there cannot be anyone over him. The agreement would then have to be with himself.

Personally, I feel that the US Bill of Rights, in conjunction with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if adhered to strictly, work just fine.

 

[CSmrw]

No, I did so that I could provide you with an answer to your question. I provided a contingent answer in the meanwtime. Your cup overfloweth. And yet you whine.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

That is a semantics point. If he considers himself the highest authority of his own morals and judgement, then there cannot be anyone over him. The agreement would then have to be with himself.

Personally, I feel that the US Bill of Rights, in conjunction with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if adhered to strictly, work just fine.

The OP said nothing about morals and judgement being the stipulation to authority over someone.

Authority as stated by the OP is WHATEVER constrains or confines you by whatever means such that you are not totally free.

Total freedom is a logical impossibility. That means that there is something that constrains you in some way. I am not concerned as to what that is.

I am only asking that IF you could make an agreement with what that concstraint might be (assuming any kind of intelligence such as to be able to agree), as specified in the OP, then what agreement would you consider.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Personally, I feel that the US Bill of Rights, in conjunction with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, if adhered to strictly, work just fine.

If you "feel" that the constitution answers the question, then please show how it does.

From what I see, it doesn't as I pointed out earlier. The US constitution wasn't designed to answer this question, so I am not claiming that it is wrong. I am merely saying that it doesn't answer this particular question whether it needs to or not.

 

[TooCurious]

You are presented with the opportunity to write an agreement with the highest authority over you (government, God, father, wife, reality, whatever) that you were going to be held to for the rest of your life by penalty of the worst torture and death conceivable regardless of your current or future situation, with only the following 3 stipulations additionally required, what would that agreement be?

1) The requirements of the parties to the agreement will be applied in reverse as well.
2) No other agreement shall ever be made once signed.
3) The exact same agreement would be offered to every other person in the world.

I would suggest considering that at some time you might find yourself being in any possible situation, possibly homeless or wealthy, injured or healthy, miserable or happy yet the agreement, word for word, would still be held. And also that the agreement is only to be “offered” to others to sign, not required.

I can think of no possible incentive that would induce me to enter into an agreement enforced in such a rigid and inflexible manner and with such barbaric penalties. Given that I am a fallible person, I would invariably fail to consider some possible circumstance that would later leave me in an untenable position with regard to the contract, and there's really no reason to put myself in that kind of danger, regardless of what benefits the contract might gain me.

"No matter what" obligations are dangerous; never name the well from which you will not drink.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I can think of no possible incentive that would induce me to enter into an agreement enforced in such a rigid and inflexible manner and with such barbaric penalties. Given that I am a fallible person, I would invariably fail to consider some possible circumstance that would later leave me in an untenable position with regard to the contract, and there's really no reason to put myself in that kind of danger, regardless of what benefits the contract might gain me.

"No matter what" obligations are dangerous; never name the well from which you will not drink.

So what each of you are saying so far is that if torture and death are the consequences for non-compliance, then you would not make such an agreement.

Is that a clue to something more often argued on this site?

 

[CSmrw]

Not that I can see.

 

[TooCurious]

So what each of you are saying so far is that if torture and death are the consequences for non-compliance, then you would not make such an agreement.

What I'm saying is that if torture and death are the consequences for non-compliance with an absolutist set of requirements with no flexibility to account for unforeseen circumstances (or did you miss that part of my post?), then such an agreement is not in any intelligent being's best interest, in my opinion, for the reason that unforeseen and improbable circumstances can and do arise.

Is that a clue to something more often argued on this site?

What, that any being who would require and enforce such a contract is monstrous? Perhaps.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

What I'm saying is that if torture and death are the consequences for non-compliance with an absolutist set of requirements with no flexibility to account for unforeseen circumstances (or did you miss that part of my post?), then such an agreement is not in any intelligent being's best interest, in my opinion, for the reason that unforeseen and improbable circumstances can and do arise.

I would agree completely.

But what this means is that IF you had to sign such an agreement, then you would want to word it such that no matter what kind of circumstance you might end up in, you would still be protected in some way. It is up to YOUR wording.

As I said in the OP, be careful to consider that you might end up in any kind of circumstance, so be careful.

It is a challenge to see if you can come up with wording that would keep your interests reasonably safe regardless of the circumstances. The US constitution considered a similar problem when it included the ability to amend the basics already stated.

But the US constitution is not something you have a choice to sign up for. If you are born in the US, then you are held to it even if you hate the thought of it. You are not really free to simply go elsewhere any more. But the US constitution was not really addressing the exact issue I have raised. It is merely close.

What, that any being who would require and enforce such a contract is monstrous? Perhaps.

What being has made such a proposal concerning endless torture for non-compliance?

The real OP concern is whether you can word such a document if you had to.

 

[NPH]

"The highest authority OVER YOU. You are not over you. You might conceive that you are the only authority in the universe, but you are still not over yourself regardless.

Yes, I am

Any organization, document or person that I allow to possess authority over myself is granted that authority solely by my own conscience ... essentially making it a higher authority in all situations. I can choose to reject, for example, the authority of the US constitution if I felt it conflicted with my conscience. I may have to suffer the consequences of that rejection of authority but it is still subject to my personal willingness to accept it as an authority.

 

[TooCurious]

I would agree completely.

But what this means is that IF you had to sign such an agreement, then you would want to word it such that no matter what kind of circumstance you might end up in, you would still be protected in some way. It is up to YOUR wording.

It's true; however, as fallible beings with limited imaginations, there will, I think, always be circumstances that won't occur to us until we find themselves in them... and by that point, the terms of the contract have already been codified.

As I said in the OP, be careful to consider that you might end up in any kind of circumstance, so be careful.

It is a challenge to see if you can come up with wording that would keep your interests reasonably safe regardless of the circumstances. The US constitution considered a similar problem when it included the ability to amend the basics already stated.

If this is the goal, then why would you include any limitations or strictures in the contract at all, that under some bizarre, Murphy's-Law circumstances, might lead to your death by torture?

But the US constitution is not something you have a choice to sign up for. If you are born in the US, then you are held to it even if you hate the thought of it. You are not really free to simply go elsewhere any more. But the US constitution was not really addressing the exact issue I have raised. It is merely close.

Well, except for the whole death-by-torture thing...

What being has made such a proposal concerning endless torture for non-compliance?

In the real world? None. Though there might be some theists who would disagree with me there.

The real OP concern is whether you can word such a document if you had to.

So just to clarify your OP, in the hypothetical described, the contract is mandatory?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

So just to clarify your OP, in the hypothetical described, the contract is mandatory?

If not manditory, then there is no discussion. OF COURSE it's manditory.

 

[levi501]

Ok... well the agreement would be to do whatever I desire.
God would do whatever I desire and everyone else would be extended the same offer to do whatever I desire.

 

[CSmrw]

If not manditory, then there is no discussion. OF COURSE it's manditory.

If the contract is mandatory then it;s not much of a contract. A contract is something you either agree to or reject. A mandatory contract is a law.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Mandatory merely means it is required that you sign. One can as an intelligent being of free will refuse to do such, which given the circumstances of the contract as described is the only viable option that I can see.
No contract, no matter how well researched and worded can cover all the possible situations that could occur during a persons lifetime.


Even assuming the alternatives are sign or die, I chose to fight and die if that is my fate.

 

[TooCurious]

If not manditory, then there is no discussion. OF COURSE it's manditory.

If it is mandatory, who is enforcing the obligation to sign the contract, and for what reasons? What is the penalty for refusal to comply?

I agree strongly with CSmrw and OdwinOddball's thoughts above, as well.

If I were forced to sign the contract, my contract would include no provisions. It would be a blank document.

No contract, no matter how well researched and worded can cover all the possible situations that could occur during a persons lifetime.

Quoted for truth.