What Is the Social Contract Theory

作者 : 北星情感 本文共5426个字,预计阅读时间需要14分钟 发布时间: 2022-04-18 共41人阅读

The level at which the subject matter of the contract is described is likely to influence the outcome of the agreement. “A striking feature from Hobbes` point of view,” Hardin points out, “is that this is a relative assessment of the overall condition. Living in a form of government versus living under anarchy” (2003, 43). Hobbes could plausibly argue that everyone would agree with the social contract because “life under government” is better from everyone`s point of view than “living under anarchy” (the basic condition). However, when a Hobbesian woman tried to divide the treaty into finer agreements on the various functions of government, she was inclined to conclude that an agreement on many functions would not be possible. If we (Lister, 2010) “zoom” in on the finer functions of government, the treaty tends to become more limited. If parties simply question whether government is better than anarchy, they will opt for almost any government (including, for example, a government that funds the arts); When they wonder whether they should have a government that funds the arts or a government that doesn`t, it`s easy to see how they can disagree on the former. Similarly, when the parties deliberate on entire moral codes, there may be a broad consensus that all moral codes as a whole are in the interest of all; When we “zoom in” on certain rights and obligations, we tend to get a very different answer. Social contracts can be explicit, like laws, or implicit, like raising your hand in class to speak. The U.S.

Constitution is often cited as an explicit example of part of the American social contract. It determines what the government can and cannot do. People who choose to live in America accept to be governed by the moral and political obligations set forth in the social contract of the Constitution. The formulations of social contracts are preserved in many of the oldest documents in the world. [8] The second-century BC Buddhist text, Mahāvastu, tells the legend of Mahasammata. After Rawls argued that any rational person who holds the original position and stands behind the veil of ignorance can discover both principles of justice, Rawls constructed perhaps the most abstract version of a theory of the social contract. It is very abstract, because instead of showing that we would have signed or even signed a contract to found the company, it rather shows us what we must be willing to accept as rational people in order to be constrained by justice and therefore to be able to live in a well-ordered society. The principles of justice are more fundamental than the social contract as it has traditionally been conceived. On the contrary, the principles of justice limit this contract and set the limits of how we can build society in the first place. For example, if we view a constitution as a concrete expression of the social contract, Rawls` two principles of justice describe what such a constitution can and cannot require of us. Rawls` theory of justice thus represents the Kantian limits of the political and social forms of organization that are permissible in a just society.

The articles reflect a consensus that is sometimes based on explicit consent, sometimes implied consent, and sometimes it functions as a hypothetical representation of what employees should accept if they argue well. Jean-Jacques Rousseau captured the hypothetical representation of consensus with his idea of the “general will” (in which employees reach a consensus by placing their collective interest above their particular interest) and the “will of all” (in which particular interests are aggregated without taking into account the collective interest). More recently, John Rawls has built on Rousseau`s argument by advancing a similar argument through what he calls the “veil of ignorance” (behind which employees derive principles of justice without knowing the social, political, or economic status they may have in the society they imagine). For Rousseau and Rawls, these concepts are not conceived as empirical accounts of how people argue, but as normative reports on how they should argue. In his adaptation of the theory of social contracts to international competition, Rousseau writes: “No doubt this does not mean that the sovereigns will accept this plan; (Who can answer for someone else`s sake?) but only that they would accept it if they consulted their true interests”[1] Similarly, Rousseau, in his account of the domestic social contract, admits that citizens can undermine the general will in favor of their particular will: “The general will is always right. But it does not follow that the reflections of the people always have the same justice. [2] The theory of the social contract is another descriptive theory of society and the relationship between rules and laws and why society needs them. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1689) suggested that a society without rules and laws governing our actions would be a terrible place to live. Hobbes described a society without rules as living in a “state of nature.” In such a state, people would act on their own, without accountability to their community. To live in a state of nature would be Darwinian in which the strongest survive and the weakest perish.

A society in Hobbes` state of nature would be without the conveniences and necessities we take for granted in modern Western society. Society would have: The concept of social contract was originally established by Glaucon, as described by Plato in The Republic, Book II. According to Locke, the state of nature is not a state of individuals, as is the case with Hobbes. Rather, it is populated by mothers and fathers with their children or families – what he calls “conjugal society” (para. 78). These societies are based on voluntary agreements to care for children together, and they are moral, but not political. Political society is born when men representing their families come together in the state of nature and agree that everyone will give up executive power to punish those who transgress natural law and surrender that power to public power to a government. After doing so, they are subject to the will of the majority. In other words, by making a pact to leave the state of nature and shape society, they make “a body politic under a government” (para. 97) and submit to the will of that body. One adheres to such a body, either from the beginning or after it has already been established by others, only by express consent. .

开通VIP 享更多特权,建议使用QQ登录