First, let's consider that it is social welfare or survival of the species that is the basis for objective morality. We agree to a social contract - certain rules that help society function better and promote benefits for society and the human species. It is important to see that survival and flourishing of the individual and survival and flourishing of the society or the species can't both be the basis of morality. Clearly they can be in conflict. It is not always the case that the survival of the species is in an individual's self-interest. Survival of the species could clearly require personal sacrifice or even the death of individual members.

Even though the idea of a social contract could be helpful to a society, it can't provide us with what we are looking for, an objective basis for morality. There is nothing that would make the rules objective and morally binding on those who disagree. A contract is not binding on one who doesn't 'sign' it, on one who is committed solely to his own welfare. Ethics based on social contract is still relative ethics.

And why should one be committed to the general welfare of society? Why should one sacrifice for others’ well being? If the answer is that human beings have intrinsic value and that is why we should be committed to the welfare of society, the response is that there is no basis for this on the atheistic world-view as we've seen. We've seen that we just can't assume the objective value of humans in a universe where everything is the accidental arrangement of atoms. We may be "higher" on the evolutionary scale, but this only means we are more complex, not more valuable. What could we say to an alien race that valued humans as the latest in nouveau cuisine? There is no objective basis in the atheistic world-view that would make it wrong for aliens to eat humans.

Furthermore, if whatever promotes the survival of the species is the basis for morality, then it follows that it would be morally right to exterminate the sick, the aged and the handicapped who could be a drain on society or contaminate the gene pool. Deep down, however, we know this is wrong.

And why should one sacrifice one's own interests for the sake of billions of other people (or even sentient creatures) who will live in the future? There is no objective basis for asserting that sacrifice is the right thing to do.

Lastly, a social contract does not seem to be an adequate explanation for the depth of our moral revulsion over some of the atrocities we see human beings perpetrate. Imagine that you had a daughter who was brutally tortured, raped, mutilated and murdered. Would your response to the perpetrator be an appeal to some social contract that he has violated? On the contrary, we would all agree that something far deeper than a social convention has been transgressed. The depth of our response would suggest that we think something outrageously immoral has taken place, not that a mere contract has been broken! Social benefits and survival of the species, therefore, as an objective foundation for morality, is wholly inadequate.

But maybe one will respond that the reason an individual should be committed to the general welfare of society is that he or she will benefit from such a society. Thus, the basis for morality now becomes self-interest. I will benefit from a society that is flourishing and surviving without chaos and therefore, I should be committed to the social contract.

CONTINUE: Self Interest