The definition of the social contract is simply the surrender of some of our rights for the protection of ourselves.
Let's explore this concept logically~
In a system of 2 people:
Let us take a simplistic view that A can kill B and vice versa, and that upon killing the other, the survivor can take the belongings of the other.
If either kills the other:
- The killer gains the other's possession
- The killer removes the risk of being killed (there's no one else to kill him!
If one does not kill the other (they enter into a social contract):
- They each keep the possessions of their own
- There is this big risk of being killed by the other as after one dies, there is no one else to uphold the tenets/law of the social contract.
It is pretty obvious that in a system of 2 people, the social contract fails.
In a system of 3 people:
Using the same simplistic view:
If one kills one of the other:
- The killer gains the other's possession
- The killer removes one chance of being killed (one less person out there possible to kill him)
Now let's put in a new concept, that the possibility of killing successfully is proportionate to the amount of possessions one has. (on a macro perspective, take it as though a nation with more resources can have higher chance of conquering a nation with less)
- The killer has an upper hand against the remaining survivor, and can thus subject power over him (or even kill him if the killer wants)
If one does not kill the other (they enter into a social contract):
- They each keep the possessions of their own
- There is this big risk of being killed by one of the others as after one dies, there is one who can try to uphold the tenets/laws of the social contract, but will ultimately fail.
In a system of 4 people:
Using the same simplistic view:
If one kills one of the other:
- The killer gains the other's possession
- The killer removes one chance of being killed (one less person out there possible to kill him)
- The killer has an upper hand against the remaining 2 survivor, individually, and can thus subject power over him (or even kill him if the killer wants). BUT if the 2 remaining survivors team up together, then the killer will only be on par with both of the 2 survivors. (though pragmatically possibly less)
If one does not kill the other (they enter into a social contract):
- They each keep the possessions of their own
- There is a risk of being killed by one of the others as after one dies, the killer will be on an equal standing (or almost equal stand) as the 2 remaining non-killing survivors.
Before we head on to a system of 5 people, let us note some of the changes which are occuring in the advantages/disadvantages of killing (as written above).
We can conclude that the social contract will be broken if the advantages of killing outweighs the advantages of being nice and not killing.
As more people are bound into the social contract, the benefits of killing starts to decrease in relative to being nice, let's prove this with a system of 5 people~
In a system of 5 people:
Using the same simplistic view:
If one kills one of the other:
- The killer gains the other's possession
- The killer removes one chance of being killed (one less person out there possible to kill him)
- The killer does NOT have an upper hand against the remaining 3 survivors, for individually, the killer can overpower and thus subject power over any other one(or even kill him if the killer wants). BUT if the 3 remaining survivors team up together, then the killer will be on risk of being killed, after all, the other 3 will acknowledge that the killing tendencies of our killer is potentially detrimental to their own well being.
If one does not kill the other (they enter into a social contract):
- They each keep the possessions of their own
- There is a risk of being killed by one of the others BUT they can at least be at a peace of mind to know that if someone kills them, their killer will not survive either.
Notes:
- I assume that everyone wants to live
- I assume that everyone would want to live better if possible
- I assumed that killers act on their own (no collaboration in killing), if such a contract comes in, then ohh well, everything will be much different now.
- I did not take into account the fact that an attempt of killing another person may result in injury which will make oneself more vulnerable.
- In the same way, I did not take into account the element of time or skill (the killer can quickly kill everyone else before they can react) and the killer may be ultra buff and can kill 3 people in single combat kinda thing.
- AND I assumed that upon the existence of a killer, everyone else would team up together to stop the guy who broke the social contract.
The existence of collaboration in killing results in the possibility that killing can still occur on a large scale if a group of people decides to kill another group; a consensus breaking of the social contract.
The fact that killing another person may result in injury dissuades people from killing each other even further than just simply through the tenets of the social contract.
Time/Skill factors come in to a large extent! Individuals will try to make themselves more skilled at eliminating others as if that happens, they may ultimately be able to exert control over the rest (either after killing some poor dude, or without killing at all). This will result in all individuals making themselves more skilled at killing, not only to gain control, but due to the fear of being killed if they become (relatively) too weak.
If there are clear signs of disharmony and potential that upon a murder, the rest will not rise together to fight (or kill) the breaker of the social contract, killing has a higher chance of happening.
My longest post in a really long while... (possibly even my longest) shall elaborate on more next time!
No comments:
Post a Comment