That's unconvincing, because there's a very clear difference between a lifestyle and a social contract.

Social contracts sketch social relationships in very broad terms. You can still have plenty of lifestyle diversity and plurality within them.

In fact you need a social contract to have any kind of diversity.

Otherwise a culture reliably degenerates into autocracy, which isn't known for its tolerance.

▲

lordleft 4 hours ago | parent [-]

That itself a distinctly modern framing. For many ancients, there was no such division; the way one lived was deeply entangled with the social contract. For example, there are religious sects that dictate specific political arrangements.

As for the diversity you speak of, I think it can be plausibly argued that many utopian conceptions of life really reduce to utilitarianism or hedonism. Diversity manifests in having different options for pleasure or utility. For a lot of people, that's inadequate.

I happen to be a philosophical liberal, and do not wish to live under a theocracy. Nonetheless, I think the fact that many of the highest aspirations of liberal philosophy amount to "having a good time" is a great risk that must be reckoned with, for it can undo the entire liberal project.

	▲	amanaplanacanal 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		My country's founding myth is that everybody deserves "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but what that pursuit looks like is up to the individual to figure out. Which seems right to me. Some will choose the pursuit of pleasure, some will choose other things.
	▲	Yeul 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		An unconvincing argument considering people who allegedly believe in god and the afterlife are continuously caught raping children. It is not religion but empathy that keeps people on the golden path- sociopaths gonna sociopath.