So, there's one aspect I think I overlooked in this whole debate, that I feel like is relevant here. While I largely accept that the hobbesian hypothesis is true on the basic level that states generally are better than no states, the original hobbesian hypothesis and the social contract theory always left a bad taste in my mouth. I mean, hobbes, if i recall, argued even a tyrannical state ("the leviathan") is better than ANY anarchy. I think this is patently untrue. I mean, nazi germany better than the state of nature for Jews? I don't think so. Tyrannical states often kill and torture dissidents, and I think that even in the modern day, anarchy or some variation thereof is better than what Russia is doing in places like Bucha or Bahkmut. Its better to live in anarchy than to live in a chinese or north korean prison camp. Heck the relative anarchy of the universe kind of allows this stuff to happen. As I said, early and barbaric states are just might makes right, and while this has some benefits, it obviously also inflicts the worst on people.
Either way, simply being better than nature is a low standard, especially in the 21st century. I mean, if you say "okay we'll give you food and shelter but we will stick probes up your butt for no real reason", does that justify sticking probes up your butt for no real reason? Not really. I mean, you could argue "BuT iTs A cOnTrAcT11!!1" and argue it's "voluntary" because they could choose starvation instead, but honestly, I think we should really consider....should people have to put up with obvious violations of their being just because they "agreed" to it or that it's "better" than "nature"? Obviously no. In my view, all state actions require some justification. We could argue the pros and cons of various actions, and we can disagree about what an ideal society looks like, and I do think there is some subjectivity there, but all in all, I think at the very least each social contract should strive to improve the well being of their people to the best of their ability, while maintaining as much freedom as possible. If youre going to violate someone's freedom, you should be able to stand in front of your constituents and argue for the why. And it is up to them to accept it. Yes yes, consent can be manufactured, political systems can descend into oligarchy, and even if the people accept it, doesnt mean it's the best we can do. What can we do in this situation? Well, why do you think I wanna write a book? To convince people that we can do better, and to inspire people to ask for better. If a state is just, ultimately it does come down to the people, and if we aren't living as good as we can be, the people are at fault for better or for worse. And that is a problem that we need to solve by better educating or enlightening people. hence why I want to write a book, to persuade people to do better. What else can I say? I'm not gonna argue like a leftist that we should override the people and implement communism against their will, which is how you get...all of the problems with that model of political theory.
But yeah, what do progressives normally argue in favor of their ideas? Superiority to the status quo. It's not good enough just to be better than nature, we should continually strive to improve upon what we've done and make it better. We should look at what other states have done differently or better, and we should continue borrowing from their models. We should look at what problems we have with what has been done, and improve upon them. I believe in progress, and that's what progress is. IMPROVEMENT. The bar for a just society is to beat out its peers. The bar for a just society is to continually improve what it has, going toward even better and better ways of living. There can be missteps along the way. Maybe we implement the wrong policy that takes us backward instead of forward, but we should keep moving forward. Conservatives in society generally think we've reached peak society or even worse, that we need to go back. Progressives want to go forward and improve. I want to go forward and improve, that makes me progressive, and my morality is one in which that I believe we have improving to do. Maybe one day, if all of my ideas are implemented, I will become a conservative and argue we have reached peak progress and that changes take us backwards. but we are not there now, so I'm a progressive.
I guess I just wanted to write this since I never really liked social contract theory. For me, it's descriptive, but it's not really an "ought". We form societies as a survival strategy to do better than we do in the state of nature. But while morality does not exist without state or other collective action, we need people deciding what morality is for it to exist, morality is also separate from the state in the sense that I believe that there are policies that objectively benefit humanity more than others. And while we can subjectively value some things more or less, like I might value freedom more than others, someone might value more security, again, I believe that at the end of the day, all states are responsible to their citizens, and if their citizens do not like that which they have, they should change it...in responsible ways of course (ie, not through poorly thought out and executed means that take us backwards).
Ya know? For me, it really does come down to democracy. States must justify themselves to their citizens. And we live in the society we collectively create, for better or for worse. And while even by this standard, we could argue for improvement, and objective morality (in the sense of what's objectively good for people) is somewhat separate from even majority opinion, ultimately, states themselves are justified by their citizens. And if we want a better society, we need to change it. And if we want to change the consensus, we need to argue for our ideas. Which is what I am doing here.
If that makes any sense at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment