Implicit social contracts work off an agreement between the governors and the governed without any indication that any form of natural and inherent right exists outside the state.
Which social contract theorists have not been natural rights philosophers?
-----signature-----
Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it - Mark Twain
There are no dialogues, only intersecting monologues -Mark Twain
|
You can’t “prove” a philosophical axiom, Ender, any more that you can “prove” a mathematical axiom. All that matters is whether one accepts the axiom as true and then builds a logically consistent framework based on that axiom (or those axioms).
For example, there are three separate branches of the mathematics of geometry—Euclidean, hyperbolic and elliptic. All three of these approaches to geometry have three different fundamental answers to the parallel postulate. One claims that there is precisely one line that can be drawn through a point above another line that will be precisely parallel to the second line; another says that there are an infinite number of possible parallel lines in that circumstance; and the third claims that there are no such lines to be drawn. Which is right? Well, it turns out that all of them are right, depending on the circumstances [insert Obi-Wan joke about point of view here].
The thing is that all three geometries are acceptable within the framework of their accepted postulates and remain logically consistent throughout. But you must accept the first postulate for any of it to make any sense. There is no value whatsoever in arguing about the validity of the postulates because you can rationally accept all three, which only indicates that there is no “absolute truth” on the matter, only the truth which you choose to accept for convenience. Interestingly, as a result of having these three different approaches to geometry, you end up with widely varying results of commonly accepted “facts” (the sum of the interior angles of a polygon, for example).
Now. Applying that same logic to political theory, the axiom upon which the US Government was built is that “all [people] are created equal and are endowed…with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” For the French, their axiom was “liberty, equality, fraternity.” These are merely axioms upon which their relative forms of government were built.
There is no value whatsoever in arguing about the validity of the postulates because you can rationally accept all three, which only indicates that there is no “absolute truth” on the matter, only the truth which you choose to accept for convenience. Just as is the case with geometry, there are distinct parallels that can be drawn between the two political theories of the US and France* but there are naturally significant differences in them as well, directly contributable to the first postulate of the theories.
Now arguing about the value of the theory as a whole is an entirely different matter. Euclidean geometry is easier than non-Euclidean geometry and applies in most cases. As such, it’s the most widely accepted form of geometry. Does that make it “better”? Well that, my friend, depends entirely on your point of view…
*Note: I only pick the US and France to contrast two approaches to democratic forms of government. The example is intentionally simplistic to illustrate the point and I acknowledge that there are significant nuances that I’m glossing over. 
-----signature-----
"When we hurt each other we should write it down in the sand,
so the winds of forgiveness can make it go away for good. When
we help each other we should chisel it in stone, lest we never
forget the love of a friend." ~Godefroy
|
