Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

contractualist OP t1_iufu7bq wrote

Reply to comment by shockingdevelopment in Freedom vs. Utility (the modern Euthyphro dilemma) by contractualist

if freedom is the basis of morality, then the interactions between the monk and others would be governed by the principles developed in a social contract (this is because the contract is reason-based and is approved by free parties, as discussed here).

Principles against murder would be included, so valuing freedom would forbid killing the monk.

1

shockingdevelopment t1_iufyn7b wrote

With social contract theory you're conceding that your argument for freedom being the foundation of morality relies on restrictions on freedom to get off the ground at all...

3

contractualist OP t1_iufzb9s wrote

Step 1) freedom, step 2) reason, step 3) social contract. The article is arguing that freedom, not utility, is step 1.

1

shockingdevelopment t1_iug36v8 wrote

But you only mean "freedom" in that humans are smart enough to make choices. In your sense It's just a prerequisite for anything we do. Not something especially related to ethics at all.

4

zhibr t1_iuhe400 wrote

So what makes one social contract better than another? A bunch of slave-keeping Southerners have a social contract where their freedom is important, but the slaves' freedom isn't. And if you say a contract that includes more people who have freedom is better, then does that directly make factory farming wrong, because the billions of cows, pigs, etc. should have freedom too? Or is there a reason to exclude animals?

1

contractualist OP t1_iuk5se5 wrote

All free humans would be included in the social contract, and would never agree to the slave owners terms, making their laws unjust. The actual social contract would exclude slavery.

Whether animals are included in our moral universe depends on whether they have a conscious (free) experience.

1