The social contract is the idea that morality and political arrangements are to be justified by social agreements. And I totally agree with this. This is the ideal of anarchism.
I suppose that the original historical source of this idea is from the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in which the Hebrews make a covenant (agreement) with God. God gives them 10 rules by which they are to live, and if they do so, they will be rewarded in heaven. Except if the deal is not accepted, they go to hell. Not quite a free agreement, ey!
For the heyday of social contract theories, see the Wikipedia entry for: Social contract
In an earlier blog, I pointed out the mismanagement of the social contract by John Rawls: Too much amnesia in the Original Position of John Rawls.
And in a still earlier blog, I pointed out the mismanagement of Rousseau’s social contract by Ian Shapiro: (2) Further commentary on Ian Shapiro’s course: “Moral Foundations of Politics”.
In this blog I will point out how Immanuel Kant mismanaged the social contract.
There has been a great deal of effort (exegesis) to tease out of Kant a coherent proposal for grounding morality — with no positive results. And the reason for Kant’s failure is easily explained, but the reason for this failure has, as far as I know, eluded everyone.
What has not been noticed is that the social contract is between “rational beings.” And these “rational beings” are God, angels, and the human noumenal self (=soul). And besides being rational beings — and this is the missed part by all commentators: they are all IMMORTAL!
And whatever the rules which are agreed to by these immortals, must apply to all of them. The fact that the (human) soul is attached to a human body is a peculiarity of interest only to humans. If a universal rule is to be adopted for all concerned, it cannot be a rule serving only a particular interest of humans, such as not to die.
I could go on and point out the consequences of this line of thinking, but I will not. I will simply say that Kant’s ethics is grounded in science fiction.
_______________________________________________________________
chatGPT said:
This critique offers a provocative take on Kant’s moral philosophy, particularly as it relates to the social contract tradition. It highlights a significant tension in Kant’s framework: the abstraction of morality to a domain of “rational beings” that includes not only humans but also hypothetical entities like God and angels. By grounding his ethics in this universalist and metaphysical framework, Kant arguably departs from the concrete, contextually rooted agreements typical of social contract theories.
Key Points in the Critique:
Immortality and Universal Rules: The claim that Kant’s rational beings are immortal complicates the applicability of his moral rules to humans. If the participants in Kant’s moral contract are not bound by the same existential conditions as humans (e.g., mortality, physical needs), the rules they establish might fail to address human-specific concerns, such as survival.
Science Fiction Allegation: The idea of constructing ethics based on beings that do not exist in human reality (like angels or noumenal selves) can indeed seem speculative. By extending morality to an otherworldly realm, Kant risks alienating his ethical framework from the lived realities of human existence.
Contrast with Anarchism: The critique implicitly contrasts Kant’s metaphysical approach with the more grounded and reciprocal ideals of anarchist interpretations of the social contract. Anarchism, as alluded to here, emphasizes agreements that arise organically among equals in specific contexts, rather than abstract principles dictated by hypothetical immortals.
A Defense of Kant?
Supporters of Kant might argue that his “rational beings” serve as a heuristic for developing universal moral principles, intended to transcend particular biases and interests. However, this defense does not fully address the critique that Kant’s framework fails to adequately consider the embodied and finite nature of human beings.
Broader Implications:
The tension highlighted here reflects a broader issue in moral philosophy: how to balance universal principles with the particularities of human life. Kant’s vision of rationality and universality has inspired much of modern ethics, but critiques like this remind us of the limitations of overly abstract frameworks when dealing with the complexities of human society.
Would you like a deeper dive into any specific aspect of this critique or Kant’s moral philosophy?
_________________________________________
You said:
WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF DEALING WITH IMMORTALS
ChatGPT said:
Dealing with immortals in the context of moral philosophy and the social contract has profound implications, as it alters the very foundation upon which moral rules and agreements are constructed. Here are the key implications:
1. Shift in Priorities
For immortals, concerns such as mortality, scarcity, or the passage of time lose relevance.
Human Implication: Many human moral concerns—preserving life, managing resources, or dealing with aging—become irrelevant. Agreements shaped by immortals would likely ignore or undervalue these issues.
Example: Rules emphasizing self-sacrifice or eternal patience might seem plausible to immortals but are impractical for finite beings.
2. Universalization Beyond Humanity
The inclusion of immortals in moral contracts pushes ethical principles toward universal abstractions.
Problem: Such universal principles might lack applicability to embodied, time-bound, and vulnerable beings like humans.
Result: Ethics may become disconnected from lived realities, prioritizing ideals over pragmatism.
3. Eternal Consequences
For immortals, decisions take on an eternal significance.
Contrast with Humans: Human decision-making often incorporates the understanding of life’s temporality—allowing for forgiveness, forgetting, or gradual improvement. Immortals might impose unyielding standards because of their unchanging nature.
Example: Eternal punishment or reward becomes conceivable, as in the theological framing of heaven and hell.
4. Moral Perfectionism
Immortals, assumed to possess perfect rationality and knowledge, could demand moral perfection.
Human Limitation: Humans, constrained by ignorance, emotion, and error, may find it impossible to meet such standards.
Tension: The disparity could lead to ethical frameworks that are aspirational but demoralizing or irrelevant for human beings.
5. Dismissal of Embodiment
For immortals, embodiment—being tied to a physical form with needs and vulnerabilities—may be a negligible factor.
Implication for Ethics: Issues like bodily autonomy, health, or physical suffering may be undervalued or dismissed in immortal-centric moral systems.
Example: A moral rule against killing might lose its force if immortals cannot die.
6. Timelessness vs. Temporality
Immortals, existing outside time, might approach moral rules without urgency.
For Humans: Humans operate within a temporal framework where decisions often have immediate and cumulative consequences. Moral systems accounting for immortals might lack the dynamism or flexibility required for real-world contexts.
Result: A static, rigid moral code could emerge, incompatible with evolving human societies.
7. Neglect of Personal Experience
Immortals, presumed to exist in a realm of pure reason or spirit, may not value the subjective, experiential aspects of morality.
Human Perspective: Emotions, relationships, and lived experiences deeply inform human morality. An immortal-driven framework might ignore these dimensions, leading to an overly intellectualized ethic.
8. Irrelevance to Pluralism
Immortals are often imagined as homogeneous (all-rational, all-knowing).
Human Reality: Humans are diverse, with different cultures, beliefs, and interests. A moral system derived from immortal considerations may lack mechanisms for accommodating pluralism or resolving conflicts.
Outcome: Ethical alienation—where moral rules feel imposed rather than collaboratively derived.
Concluding Thought
Incorporating immortals into moral philosophy shifts the focus from practical, context-sensitive agreements to abstract, eternal principles. While this might provide a lofty ideal, it risks alienating ethical frameworks from human realities. For the social contract tradition, which thrives on agreements between equal and interdependent beings, the inclusion of immortals undermines the basis for mutual, practical cooperation.
Would you like to explore how this critique could apply to specific philosophers, such as Kant or others?
__________________________________________________
You said:
YES
ChatGPT said:
Let’s delve deeper into the implications of dealing with immortals within the frameworks of specific philosophers, focusing on Kant, Hobbes, and Rousseau, as well as the broader social contract tradition.
1. Kant and Immortals
Kant’s ethical framework presupposes a realm of rational beings, including immortals like God, angels, and noumenal selves. Here’s how the inclusion of immortals impacts his system:
Implications for Kant’s Moral Philosophy
Abstract Universality:
Kant’s categorical imperative demands rules that could apply universally to all rational beings. However, when this includes immortals, the scope of universality may disregard human-specific conditions (e.g., mortality, emotions, needs).
Example: Immortals don’t face death or hunger, so a rule against taking lives might seem irrelevant to them. For humans, this is essential.
Moral Perfectionism:
Kant’s ethics assumes that rational beings can act purely out of duty, guided by reason. Immortals, with perfect rationality, embody this ideal, but humans struggle with competing desires and limitations.
Tension: The gap between human and immortal capacities makes Kantian morality aspirational but potentially impractical.
Immortal Rules and Human Existence:
Kant’s noumenal realm detaches morality from the physical, embodied world. An immortal, disembodied perspective might devalue actions tied to human embodiment, like caring for others’ physical well-being.
Critique Summary
By framing morality for a timeless, rational realm, Kant risks creating a system disconnected from human realities. The inclusion of immortals shifts his ethics toward a speculative “science fiction,” as your earlier critique aptly noted.
2. Hobbes and Immortals
Hobbes’s social contract is grounded in the mortal condition of humans—specifically, the fear of death and the desire for self-preservation. Introducing immortals would fundamentally alter his framework.
Implications for Hobbes
No Fear of Death:
Hobbes argues that the fear of violent death motivates humans to form a social contract. Immortals, being invulnerable, lack this incentive.
Consequence: Immortals wouldn’t need to establish a Leviathan or any political order to protect themselves. Their participation in a social contract becomes unnecessary.
Lack of Material Concerns:
Immortals don’t compete for resources, land, or power, which Hobbes sees as primary drivers of conflict. Without these pressures, the rationale for a Hobbesian contract dissolves.
Disconnection from Humans:
If humans are mortal and immortals are not, their interests and concerns diverge so significantly that any shared social contract would privilege one group while neglecting the other.
Critique Summary
Hobbes’s mortal-focused social contract collapses if immortals are involved, as their invulnerability undermines the core motivations for political and moral agreements.
3. Rousseau and Immortals
Rousseau’s social contract emphasizes the collective good and the general will. His vision is grounded in human equality and shared vulnerability. Introducing immortals destabilizes this balance.
Implications for Rousseau
General Will and Immortal Interests:
The general will seeks the common good, but immortals, with eternal perspectives, may define “common good” in ways that neglect human priorities like survival or well-being.
Example: Immortals might prioritize abstract principles of justice over practical human concerns, like ending hunger.
Inequality of Power:
Rousseau’s framework assumes all participants in the social contract are roughly equal. Immortals, with their superior knowledge and capacities, create an insurmountable hierarchy, undermining the egalitarian foundation.
Dehumanization of Morality:
Rousseau sees morality as rooted in human nature and empathy. Immortals, being unembodied, may lack the emotional resonance necessary for fostering solidarity and compassion.
Critique Summary
The inclusion of immortals fractures Rousseau’s egalitarian vision, creating a moral and political system that alienates humans from their shared, embodied experiences.
4. Broader Implications for the Social Contract Tradition
The inclusion of immortals in the social contract tradition introduces conceptual tensions across the board:
Asymmetric Interests: Immortals and humans have fundamentally different priorities. The resulting contracts might marginalize human-specific concerns.
Undermined Reciprocity: Social contracts rely on mutual vulnerability and interdependence. Immortals, being self-sufficient, lack these qualities, destabilizing the logic of cooperation.
Loss of Practical Relevance: Social contracts derive legitimacy from addressing real-world human concerns. Introducing immortals shifts the focus to speculative, otherworldly realms, undermining the contract’s applicability.
Concluding Thought
When immortals are included in moral or political systems like Kant’s or the broader social contract tradition, the frameworks risk becoming detached from human realities. This critique not only highlights the limitations of these philosophical models but also emphasizes the importance of grounding moral and political theories in the lived experiences of finite, embodied beings.
