(Return to main path )

I don't think it's that simple. We all know that there never was a real historical social contract to kick off government or morality. Attacking that view is attacking a straw man.

Your other question is more important. Why should we pay attention to a hypothetical contract? Now THAT is interesting. I'm not sure I know the complete answer, but I have some thoughts.

Think of all this talk about hypothetical contracts as a thought experiment. The point of the experiment is to figure out what rational people without a government or without a morality would agree to do. If we can figure that out, then we can say that IF we are to be rational, then we should do what they would decide to do. So we are bound not by an actual agreement but by our commitment to acting rationally. Furthermore, the experiment may show that it is in each individual's interest to follow certain rules. Therefore, IF we are committed to acting in our own interest, we should keep the hypothetical agreement. In short, we are bound by rationality and prudence to keep the agreement even if it is hypothetical.

Another way to think about it is that the arguments that Lomasky and Narveson and others make involving hypothetical contracts show us that each of us has good reasons to agree to and abide by a set of moral rules. That remains true even if there never was a contract. But if we have good reasons to do something, then we should do it. That's all we need.