But why should I abide by a social contract? First of all, the social contract is a figment. There’s not really any such thing, certainly none signed by me. Second of all, the social contract is not voluntary the way pretty much any other contract at least theoretically should be. I didn’t choose to be born where I was and I was never given the rundown on the rules and asked if I agreed. Third, according to the neoliberal economic construction of moral values, if my gains from breaking the social contract more than offset the penalties for breaking the social contract, it would simply be a rational choice for me to break the social contract.
Economic theory can’t provide a justification for adhering to the social contract in the first place. Just as I’ve been arguing, moral values can’t be provided by economic theory. In fact, the application of economic theory presupposes certain moral values (such as the enforceability of contracts).
Let’s get a little more specific. Suppose that some condition that varies person to person – let’s say “wealth” for the sake of argument – makes it easier for some than for others to break the social contract without consequences, or with consequences that are more than offset by their gains from breaking the contract. Now we have a class of people – the “wealthy” – who can effectively ignore the terms of the social contract because they can simply buy their way out of it. Why isn’t this simply rational choice on their part?
The argument I’m making is that the neoliberal construction of morality justifies such thinking but that this is not a good system of moral values. Because it ensures that society and its rules cannot be just.
Not sure what work the word “should” is doing here. So far no one has produced such a set of rules or a just society so I remain skeptical of this premise.
