A Refutation of the Social Contract

By Heejun Sir

A key concept in political philosophy is the idea of the social contract, which deals with whether or not the state is legitimate. It states that you hold a moral obligation to follow the rules of the state because you have given consent to it. There are 3 main justifications for this.


1: The reciprocal principle. You receive benefits from the state, to which you now have a reciprocal duty.


The problem with this justification is that this contract was coerced. In order for a contract to be morally legitimate, it has to be voluntarily agreed upon by both parties, even if it supposedly benefits both parties. Given that you do not have the ability to refuse the benefits (and duties) given by the state, it’s a coerced contract. 


Secondly, even if I voluntarily accepted this ‘gift’ from the state, receiving the gift does not mean I am accepting a reciprocal duty. For example, it’s possible for somebody to give me a can of coke, but that doesn’t mean I have to give them a favor in return. I might feel personally inclined to do so, but it is not a moral obligation.


A more advanced version of the justification is that 1) most people if given a choice would choose to live under a state because they are able to receive benefits (protection from the police, access to education, etc), and 2) the rights of most people to live under a state is more important.


I have 3 responses to this.


Firstly, I’m unsure if the first premise is true. The reason why the average person doesn’t oppose the state is not that they had a cost-benefit calculation of the state. It’s that they don’t even think about opposing the state because the average individual doesn’t have the capacity to abolish the state. In addition, the average person cannot give informed consent. This is because the average person cannot imagine what life would’ve been otherwise. They don’t know what it’s like to live without a state, never thought about a life without the state, and were constantly told that the state of nature was nasty, brutish, and short. This means the average person doesn’t have the capacity to give consent, because consent requires a person to actively evaluate it and be able to know how their decisions will influence their life.


Secondly, even if individuals have the capacity and willingness to give consent, the assumption of consent itself is principally unethical. This is because consent has to be explicit and affirmative, meaning individuals must actively make it clear that they support the state. This justification doesn’t prove people personally agreed with the state, just presumes that most people will. In addition, consent must be directly given by the actor. Under the social contract, the state (or the philosopher supporting it) is speaking for the consent of millions of people. However, just like how voting must be direct, consent must be direct as well. 


Thirdly, this justification, if we take it at its best, proves that a state is justified, not the state. The distinction here is critical. This is because the social contract goes beyond proving a state is necessary. It implies that individuals have a moral obligation towards the particular state they’re living in. This means individuals have the right to oppose the state, even if a state is necessary because the argument here is not abolishing it, but changing it.


2: Implicit Consent. You chose to stay within the state, showing implicit consent. (AKA “if you hate our country, why don’t you leave” argument)


The second justification has 2 problems. 


Firstly, for many people, it is practically impossible to leave the state. This may be for financial reasons, where you cannot afford to move to another country. You might not have access to visas, preventing you from crossing the border. Many people are also simply reluctant to leave for cultural reasons, not knowing foreign languages, or simply not wanting to live in an alien culture. Lastly, leaving your homeland means you lose your personal connections, and relationships with your family and friends. This proves that there are many other reasons for which people may not want to leave the state, even if they oppose it, meaning they cannot be morally blamed for opposing the state and not leaving it at the same time.


Secondly, this logic can become a slippery slope for justifying authoritarianism. If living under a state shows implicit consent, then you could say the people of China, North Korea, also have ‘agreed’ to living under the state. Unless you are willing to support North Korea, this position is logically indefensible.


3: Explicit Consent (Democratic Mandate) When you vote, you explicitly agree to the state’s decisions.


Okay, here’s a bunch of reasons why voting does NOT imply consent.