[Morality Games]

I am not sure whose works you read and what your criticisms are.

Unimportant. The point was letting you know I'm not in synch with social contract theorists.

You don't believe that people should be free to voluntary enter contracts that benefit themselves?

No, I think they should, but there is nothing in fact which makes that the case. I just find it to my advantage to 'pretend' as though there was.

How can this not contribute to individual and societal welfare?

Why should the welfare of other individuals and society matter to a human who is better off robbing both?

You don't find genocide acceptable because you base it on your emotions?

Not just my emotions, also my reasoning (aka, the logical refinement of my thoughts), but emotions are the most primary force in being human. Either you care or you don't, you are outraged or you are not -- action depends on feeling as though you need to do something. No amount of reasoning can convince a person to give a damn, but a certain line of reasoning can produce an emotion, and that makes them give a damn.

This does not validate unjust rights. Humans can and do use reason to establish a sense of justice.

A sense of justice is relative to different people, their feeling of how fairness ought to be enforced. For that matter, their sense of fairness is also relative.

I don't understand why you need to appeal to an outside authority. Why not appeal to reason. Can you make an reasoned argument why someone should not be allowed the fruits of their labor? Why should theft and plunder be justified? It is based on emotion

Because 'reason' is also subjective and relative -- reason is the logical refinement of thoughts, a way of clarifying and making sure one's reflections and opinions are consistent in the same set. People who make it a point of pride to call themselves 'reasonable' do not accept this definition, but interpretatively, it is the most accurate depiction of how sophisticated thinking works in humans. All individuals and cultures in history have had their own way of reasoning things out, that is, using logic to refne their thoughts, making their mentality more coherent.

But we are crossing into semantics, and that is dangerously confusing territory.

Non-sequiter. Why bring the animal kingdom into this argument? I do think people are rational rather than irrational. People make more rational choices everyday than irrational choices. Most people, overall, choose beneficial actions rather than detrimental actions.

I think your idea of reason is a bit wide.