How to Vote 3: Social Contracts and Ethics

In previous posts I have been systematically discussing what kind of social system would seem most appropriate from a non-Christian, perhaps atheist point of view. My conclusion is that from such a perspective, the egoist perspective seems most logical: do that which is in your own best interest. If we formulate self-interest in terms of pleasure and pain, we suggested that a maximum of happiness would result from a system in which fellow egoists agree to a social contract that allows maximal freedom without impinging on the pleasure of others. This entree asks what the ethical system of such a social contract would look like.

Such a system would likely look like the dictum of Thomas Jefferson, "that government governs best that governs least." In other words, the function of law is to keep one person's "pursuit of happiness" from impinging on that of another.

We thus outlaw murder, but perhaps not suicide. We outlaw stealing. We outlaw activities that endanger others, but not necessarily ones that endanger ourselves. In this system, we wouldn't have laws about the sexual activities of consenting adults, hetero- or homosexual. We probably would not have seat belt laws.

It makes sense in this system to have laws that protect workers and avoid things like monopolies and price gouging. This "universal egoist" system is thus somewhat different from a straight utilitarian or pure capitalist system.

A crucial question, and one the founding fathers did not address in a way to our current liking, is who constitutes a person whose happiness counts. In the original Constitution, slaves did not count as full persons; women and children were not given the right to vote either. From an egoist perspective, there is no clear answer as to who would count. I suggested at the very beginning that we might take a "noble" egoist perspective, by which I meant that we would count everyone: men, women, children. All races, the unborn, all ages--these are people we could include. Certainly any that we do not include who have the potential to disturb the egoistic balance are a threat to the system and thus are reasonably included.

America was roughly set up on this model. Settled during a time of persecution, the principal of religious neutrality was set up. American was not to have an established religion to escape the religious persecutions of England and Europe. Rhode Island was thus equally inviting for Anabaptist, Catholic, and Protestant alike. The idea was of course not to squash religion, but to allow each individual to practice his or her religion as made them happy. If one person's practice of religion, free speech, or free ideas threatened the happiness of others, then of course we might legitimately place curbs on it.

This is a sketch of an egoist system that attempts to maximize individual freedom and happiness while minimizing pain. We have conceived it without reference to theism. Since I believe in God and Christ, however, I must now ask what modifications I must make to such a system as a Christian. When I was an egoist, I thought as an egoist, I voted as an egoist.

But when I become a Christian, do I put away egoist things? Next entree: How does a Christian function in this system, or can she?