The mention of the social contract brings in a distinction that the participants in the programme kept bumping up against - the distinction between rights that are somehow innate and inalienable, and presumably always existed even if they were only 'discovered' and declared at a certain historical moment; and those that come into a existence as the result of a kind of mutual agreement to abide by a set of rules or laws - like the right of a person playing chess to move the bishop along the diagonal lines.
I guess social contract rights are more the latter type: they presume (and I'm vaguely thinking back to Hobbes here) that society is a contract freely entered into between rulers and ruled for the ultimate benefit of all, and that both rights and obligations stem from this agreement. I guess what I'm more interested in, though, is the other kind of un-negotiable morality appealed to in the Declaration of Independence (from a rights point of view) or the Ten Commandments (from an obligation one). Although, come to think of it, the commandments were a contract too...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-01-20 09:43 pm (UTC)I guess social contract rights are more the latter type: they presume (and I'm vaguely thinking back to Hobbes here) that society is a contract freely entered into between rulers and ruled for the ultimate benefit of all, and that both rights and obligations stem from this agreement. I guess what I'm more interested in, though, is the other kind of un-negotiable morality appealed to in the Declaration of Independence (from a rights point of view) or the Ten Commandments (from an obligation one). Although, come to think of it, the commandments were a contract too...