No, the social contract is a philosophical concept where people agree implicitly to behave a certain way in order to maximize the value of interaction. Part of that involves consenting to governance, but that is merely one aspect of the social contract.
Since the assumption is that "the media broke the terms of the social contract" wouldn't my obligation to follow their terms be suspended? (Much like our social contract not to physically harm one another can be suspended while they are actively trying to physically harm you)
>If so, that'd be vigilante justice and still immoral.
Also I don't want to get to off topic, but I want to challenge your premise that vigilante justice is always immoral. (Is it immoral for a parent to punish a child for jaywalking instead of calling the police?)
> No. Someone violating the social contract doesn't give you permission to violate it yourself.
At what point does a party become free from the obligations of their social contract with the corporate media company then?
>And I didn't say it was always immoral, I said it was generally immoral. One should assume "generally" rather than "always"... in general.
My apologies, based off your previous comments I assumed you were taking a firm ethical stance here. With that said then, I just want to point out that the claim "vigilante justice is immoral" is far from being ethical consensus among philosophers. (Communitarians vs Forfeiturist)
Ultimately this is outside the scope of our conversation so I'd rather not get hung up on it... the tone of your claim just struck me as oddly bold.
When a person no longer benefits in any way from the social contract, that person is unbound by it. Almost always, this means eliminating all contact with that society.
And I am taking a firm ethical stance; it's just not an absolute ethical stance.
