Here is a post I made to a discussion board & a sort of rebuttal article to something my professor said, stating that the social contract theory is required for society to function. This was very short, and I write it up in about 2 minutes, but I was told by several folks that it is something that was unique, the Philosophy professor said it was a decent challenge to modern ethics, so I want to see what kind of feedback I might get on here! Any thoughts or challenges are greatly appreciated. 
__________________________________________________ __________________________
First off, the notion that the government should uphold any moral standards, and to thus, make the case that these standards are for the "greater good",and that we are naturally born, and must adhere to these standards is utterly abysmal. The state has no real power, as power is a notion/mindset, and thus, a fallacy in its own right. There is no power, to which it is not blindly given. To bow to such a systematic structure of rules and boundaries, and restraints placed on human nature, seems contrary to the very human element itself, and quite a barbaric & weak-minded practice, if I've ever seen one. I want to first break down the accepted view of society, before delving into morality. We are told, and taught, and we accept the view that society is a large, breathing unit of individuals.. however, while at the same time, the individual, the one(s) who makes up the whole of society, are pushed as aside & deemed irrelevant, making a case that the individual, even though making up the very fabric of society, is no more or less important as the common house fly. The individuals within society are but a mere statistic, and therefore,boast no real meaning besides being another number, or letter of the alphabet; and are certainly not influential in the grand scheme of things. Society & therefore, the state, works on a system of standards. Everything is standardized. Health, both physical &psychological, Education, Morals.. everything has a number, a statistic, or a system of norms, that encourage everyone to be "good little soldiers", and fall in line with these commonly, and passively accepted policies. Failure, in fact, to do so, is social &political suicide, for to the state, and the mass of society, there is no room for the individual, and any hint of practicing individualism is swiftly & mercilessly met with criticism, and a lambasting outcry of attacks by the vicious dogs of normality. It's a sickening system of military-style tactics. Looking back at the 1700's-1800's, the uniforms worn by soldiers were made to do one thing, and one thing only: inhibit the individual. Collars were designed to be stiffened in a fashion that made it damn-uncomfortable to look around,side-to-side, for the good soldier does not think, the good soldier does. "Eyes forward!" as the field commander would call out. You are not a person, you are a pawn, a unit, a single, expendable member of one all-encompassing collective. Within this raw analogy, lies the very fabric of society, under the state, and the notion of the Social Contract.
If you were to group together 500 people, and conclude that the average weight of those people was, say, 180 pounds, what is the probability that if you pick any person out of that group, that they will weight exactly 180 pounds? The answer would be pretty slim.. they might come close, or might be somewhat near that target mark, but chances are, the person you pick, will not match the exact statistic. Therefore, thinking critically of this matter, we can safely presume that 180 pounds would be a "normal" weight, correct? That this number is the standard by which all others are judged..? If the answer to that was a yes, then any individual deviating from the golden 180, would then immediately be deemed not normal, different, weird, etc.Statistically speaking, any deviation at all, would fail to meet the criteria of normality. And that's just 500 people, so the margin of error could honestly be quite small with my previous example,however, we again must look as society as the "greater-collective"..so, let's push that number to Ten Thousand, or One Million. The larger the scale, the less important the individual therefore becomes, until that number reaches into the billions of persons. What is the significance then? The statistic is stagnant, and thus, so becomes meaning of the individual, in this example (even though this example is the basis of fact-observed throughout life today, as we know it). The worst part, is that there is a blind acceptance of this system. People no longer look at their self for acceptance, but instead bend minds at the atrocious standards society has placed before them, with the looming thought that the failure to conform to such standards; to be an individual among the collective, is to be unfitting for normality, when in reality, it is reality which is unfitting to the individual.
It is here which I make my final case. I have stated why I think the State (government), as well as society are both atrocious, and here's why:
Human nature, as well as nature in general is absolute. It is raw, it is real, and it is truthful. It is however, not unicorns, and skittles at all times.Human nature is, as it is. To call it "dark" or "evil",or "immoral" is at its own core, immoral, simply because these entities & ideas repress what just is. It's a very simple concept, one of absolute truth. Therefore, society & normality not only is not of truthful reality, but is in & of itself, immoral. It is conceived, and generated by the collective,unconscious state of self-unaware people to rationalize & repress human nature, and then slap a word on it called "immoral",and then fabricate a notion of normalcy, to further sink into a dulled perception of false security from what we, as humans, truly are. Which is where the cunning nature of manipulative people feed off of this collective state of stupidity, and then implement their own state of "power", which, like I said previously, is done so through blind acceptance. Therefore, the State, as well as the Social Contract, which aim to, once again, limit human nature,and destroy the idea of the individual, are at their very notion,immoral, and collectively repressive. Neither are needed in order to create order, as human nature will do so without empty policy ®ulation. Henceforth, deeming Society, as well as the State, and the theory of the Social Contract, along with any unnamed theories &policies, irrelevant to the human element.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
First off, the notion that the government should uphold any moral standards, and to thus, make the case that these standards are for the "greater good",and that we are naturally born, and must adhere to these standards is utterly abysmal. The state has no real power, as power is a notion/mindset, and thus, a fallacy in its own right. There is no power, to which it is not blindly given. To bow to such a systematic structure of rules and boundaries, and restraints placed on human nature, seems contrary to the very human element itself, and quite a barbaric & weak-minded practice, if I've ever seen one. I want to first break down the accepted view of society, before delving into morality. We are told, and taught, and we accept the view that society is a large, breathing unit of individuals.. however, while at the same time, the individual, the one(s) who makes up the whole of society, are pushed as aside & deemed irrelevant, making a case that the individual, even though making up the very fabric of society, is no more or less important as the common house fly. The individuals within society are but a mere statistic, and therefore,boast no real meaning besides being another number, or letter of the alphabet; and are certainly not influential in the grand scheme of things. Society & therefore, the state, works on a system of standards. Everything is standardized. Health, both physical &psychological, Education, Morals.. everything has a number, a statistic, or a system of norms, that encourage everyone to be "good little soldiers", and fall in line with these commonly, and passively accepted policies. Failure, in fact, to do so, is social &political suicide, for to the state, and the mass of society, there is no room for the individual, and any hint of practicing individualism is swiftly & mercilessly met with criticism, and a lambasting outcry of attacks by the vicious dogs of normality. It's a sickening system of military-style tactics. Looking back at the 1700's-1800's, the uniforms worn by soldiers were made to do one thing, and one thing only: inhibit the individual. Collars were designed to be stiffened in a fashion that made it damn-uncomfortable to look around,side-to-side, for the good soldier does not think, the good soldier does. "Eyes forward!" as the field commander would call out. You are not a person, you are a pawn, a unit, a single, expendable member of one all-encompassing collective. Within this raw analogy, lies the very fabric of society, under the state, and the notion of the Social Contract.
If you were to group together 500 people, and conclude that the average weight of those people was, say, 180 pounds, what is the probability that if you pick any person out of that group, that they will weight exactly 180 pounds? The answer would be pretty slim.. they might come close, or might be somewhat near that target mark, but chances are, the person you pick, will not match the exact statistic. Therefore, thinking critically of this matter, we can safely presume that 180 pounds would be a "normal" weight, correct? That this number is the standard by which all others are judged..? If the answer to that was a yes, then any individual deviating from the golden 180, would then immediately be deemed not normal, different, weird, etc.Statistically speaking, any deviation at all, would fail to meet the criteria of normality. And that's just 500 people, so the margin of error could honestly be quite small with my previous example,however, we again must look as society as the "greater-collective"..so, let's push that number to Ten Thousand, or One Million. The larger the scale, the less important the individual therefore becomes, until that number reaches into the billions of persons. What is the significance then? The statistic is stagnant, and thus, so becomes meaning of the individual, in this example (even though this example is the basis of fact-observed throughout life today, as we know it). The worst part, is that there is a blind acceptance of this system. People no longer look at their self for acceptance, but instead bend minds at the atrocious standards society has placed before them, with the looming thought that the failure to conform to such standards; to be an individual among the collective, is to be unfitting for normality, when in reality, it is reality which is unfitting to the individual.
It is here which I make my final case. I have stated why I think the State (government), as well as society are both atrocious, and here's why:
Human nature, as well as nature in general is absolute. It is raw, it is real, and it is truthful. It is however, not unicorns, and skittles at all times.Human nature is, as it is. To call it "dark" or "evil",or "immoral" is at its own core, immoral, simply because these entities & ideas repress what just is. It's a very simple concept, one of absolute truth. Therefore, society & normality not only is not of truthful reality, but is in & of itself, immoral. It is conceived, and generated by the collective,unconscious state of self-unaware people to rationalize & repress human nature, and then slap a word on it called "immoral",and then fabricate a notion of normalcy, to further sink into a dulled perception of false security from what we, as humans, truly are. Which is where the cunning nature of manipulative people feed off of this collective state of stupidity, and then implement their own state of "power", which, like I said previously, is done so through blind acceptance. Therefore, the State, as well as the Social Contract, which aim to, once again, limit human nature,and destroy the idea of the individual, are at their very notion,immoral, and collectively repressive. Neither are needed in order to create order, as human nature will do so without empty policy ®ulation. Henceforth, deeming Society, as well as the State, and the theory of the Social Contract, along with any unnamed theories &policies, irrelevant to the human element.
Comment