1. Philosophical Topic That Arises Frequently

2. Obligations as a citizen: I must not break the law Benefits: citizenship, protection of constitutional rights, In short, membership in society entails receiving benefits from and owing obligations to that society.

3. Social Contract “Theory” Presumption of a time long ago when humans lived in a state of nature. They lived in an asocial context. Exponents of the Social Contract call this condition STATE OF NATURE. It is the assumption that because humans once did not belong to society they did not have obligations to society and could do pretty much whatever they wanted.

4. State of Nature has Disadvantages State of Nature did not allow humans to live up to full potential Contemplated forming society to avoid danger, disorder, and isolation. Anarchic State of Nature ensures disorder therefore Society was a better choice.

5. What Should Society Be Like? What benefits will its citizens receive? What obligations will they owe? Must everyone who agrees to be part of the Society agree to the terms of the society? Must they conform absolutely? Should the values and assumptions upon which the society is based be constantly reviewed and reevaluated?

6. Without agreement on laws and values – society would experience disorder and anarchy would prevail - back to State of Nature.

7. Equally applied to individual and to society Sign a contract to wash someone’s car They agree to pay $$ As citizens we agree to certain obligations in return for benefits Benefits: protection of our liberty

8. Benefits = protected liberty Obligations = limitations on liberty Dilemma: liberty must be somewhat limited in order to protect liberty!

9. What would be the result? If there are no limitations on liberty - we could go around killing people. But if I run around killing people – that infringes on your liberty -- your right to life – it is a fundamental liberty that will be in jeopardy! Therefore: in order to protect your liberty (right to life) my liberty: the freedom to go around killing … must be limited.

10. We would have no obligations to society and we could do whatever we wanted. That would take us back to the plagued “State of Nature” that we climbed out of long ago. In short: Liberty must sometimes be sacrificed for order because liberty cannot be protected in a state of disorder.

11. The dilemma What would happen if liberty were ALWAYS sacrificed for order? There would be plenty of order an d no liberty the extreme opposite of the “State Of Nature” - Authoritarianism The Social Contract must strike a balance between order and liberty.

12. The Social Contract must strike a balance between order and liberty Individuals should be granted as much liberty as possible without sacrificing the order that is necessary for liberty to be protected.

13. Associated with Social Contract People are fundamentally good State of nature did not allow for individuals to unite and channel energies to common goals Hence: need for society Absolute power is not necessary People need freedom Strike a balance between order and liberty

14. Application of the Social Contract _____________________________

15.  Conflict between order and liberty is ongoing in the U.S.  More liberty means liberty cannot be restricted – even to thwart terrorism – liberty at all costs OR  More order might involve limiting individual rights to maintain safety.

16. Rights such as privacy must be limited to preserve safety… but to what extent? In order to protect the common good the right to privacy might have to be curtailed. It could be argued that the right to privacy is more important than the common good. We have to weight the value of both and determine which has more value.

17. Deals with the conflict between order and liberty It can be used to argue both sides of an issue