ok, what im saying is that all your descriptions are mere descriptions and lack value to us, plus they are worse than good descriptions because you use words improperly, example :contract.
essentially your theory of the social contract is equally valid for wolf-packs, they socially contract to hunt game together , follow the head dog, and not attack eachother, and most of the time they do this and for good game theory reasons. so 1) do they have a social contract? 2)is this information useful/valueable?
Yes, they are descriptions. However, I think these descriptions are extremely valuable. I have not used the word “contract” improperly–I still do not see how agreeing to do a dance in return for me standing on my head is not a contract.
Even if wolves can accept, reject, break, or keep contracts, it does them no good because they are powerless against humans and their technology. The descriptions are valuable for humans because they serve as a way to predict what will happen to society as a result of keeping or breaking contracts.
The dance takes place. I refuse to stand on my head.
Can the dancer force me to stand on my head? Of course! They could also lock me in a jail cell or punch me in the face. Heck, there doesn’t even need to have been a contract for them to aggress on me!
The problem is, most likely we have both already made contracts with defense agencies to not aggress upon others. We have both aggressed upon each other: I by breaking the contract, and you by punching me in the face. If they don’t handle our dispute, they risk losing customers.
And how is my answer to the wolf problem a dodge? The theory only works for the dominant species in society. If a bunch of aliens attacked us with super weapons, would we not get together and try to compromise with them?
The prisoner’s dilemma only proves my point. In multiple plays it is avantageous to keep agreeing, then if the other blames you, you retaliate with blaming them untill they start agreeing again.
When two parties agree on a contract it is avantageous to both of them. If one constanly makes and breaks contracts, others will no longer deal with them, leaving them at a disadvantage. Contracts are loaded with information in this way.
as far as i can tell you dont really have a point. is your point that there is a social contract now and always between people? that there could be? that there should be? that there would be?
agreements are not the same as contracts, it seems like contracts are your favourite word, and whenever you get the chance to swap it for the proper word you do.
you have conceded that it was an empty gesture, there might be a use in terms of ‘credibility of mere promises based on past history’ but this underlines the point that you arent talking about contracts.
Agreements and contracts are synonymous, in that they are both promises to do something PROVIDED another does something. You cannot be declaired credible or uncredible for not following through with promises. You CAN with contracts/agreements.
If everyone I know says that Mr. Misterson doesn’t do his job after he gets paid to, I sure as heck won’t do business with him regardless of whether it is “theoretical” or not.
(n) agreement, understanding (the statement (oral or written) of an exchange of promises) “they had an agreement that they would not interfere in each other’s business”; “there was an understanding between management and the workers”
Is what I was using.
(n) agreement, accord (harmony of people’s opinions or actions or characters) “the two parties were in agreement”