----------------

& Society
The Moral Social Contract

----------------

The Moral Social Contract in brief....
  places ultimate authority in each and every human individual equally. Therefore, the standardized "contract" between or among two or more individuals need not be moral and only can be if  they agree to institute and abide by that which commonly forms to explain and enable their individual differences first within the geopolitical borders of a nation-state.
  Not all individuals even can so institute and abide. Those who can equally are the enfranchisable, and politically they'd have custody of the second where and when both humanly form commonly to be primary human characteristics. That second, the unenfranchisable, are our children and those nominal "adults" who for whatever reason are incapable of governing even their own behavior rationally- much less with moral knowledge or accountability. Morally therefore, the first bear custodial responsibility politically for the welfare of the second. That duty equally includes all of them, and it extends to open the possibility of  their wards' equal opportunity to achieve positive life options even beyond their preeminent rights to survival and prospects for achieving enfranchisabilty themselves.
  The first right and duty of those within the natural or adoptive family to assure this is presumptive, but the standardized word-concept of the "family" joins still others which don't refer to interest groups politically having institutional authority morally at all. All form humanly to be from secondary human characteristics where and when standardized "race," "ethnicity," "age, "gender," "religion," "nationality" and "ideology" denote others. Therefore, each member of these groups would have a fully-optioned right to combine with others privately within them, but not politically to impose his or  her beliefs in and through them.
  Because each individual ultimately has greatest moral and rational authority even before he or she socially does contract with others, even his or her morally-contracted authority equally as shared within it has a social referent of two politically-divisible parts. One standardizes a "private sector" which, like the individual privately himself or herself, also has political authority- be it truly of a "free" enterprize and trade or not. The other is a public sector, and its custodians would set the moral example inclusively within the nation-state's geopolitical borders even while a politically-compliant and itself-political private sector both would follow and- economically only- also lead.
  The enfranchisable individual ultimately would lead within both sectors, and he or she would do so both privately and politically by example. Though privately it also is her or his fully-optioned, private right not to participate politically, the public-sector opportunity for his or her democratically-direct and equal involvement would standardize within a moral social contract. Only then would and could a truly "moral majority" domestically present a socially-moral example to the rest of us who aren't within those moral geopolitical borders.
  Only then could they standardize to be a "nation" of individuals whose collective essence morally forms and politically founds within a geographically-identifiable "state." Still, that they'd have to morally defend those borders domestically and internationally from those who'd not respect them poses yet another threat....


     Home    Contents    Communication    Top    


Thanks for visiting The Formation Quest
Last modified on September 6, 1999