These two principles are linked by a certain order. The first principle, the distribution of civil liberties as far as possible in accordance with equality, precedes the second principle, which distributes social and economic goods. In other words, we cannot decide to give up some of our civil liberties in favour of greater economic advantage. Rather, we must meet the requirements of the first principle before moving on to the second. From Rawls` point of view, this series of principles expresses a fundamental rational preference for certain types of goods, that is, those embodied in civil liberties, over other types of goods, that is, economic benefits. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) advocated a conception of the social contract that did not consist in an individual relinquishing his sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract was not between individuals and the state, but between individuals who fail to force or govern each other, each retaining complete sovereignty over himself: since Locke did not imagine the state of nature as darkly as Hobbes, he can imagine conditions in which one would be better off, reject a particular civil government and return to the state of nature. with the aim of building a better civilian government in its place. It is therefore both the view of human nature and the nature of morality itself that are responsible for the differences between Hobbes` and Locke`s views on the social contract. Legal scholar Randy Barnett has argued[22] that while a corporation`s presence in the territory may be required for consent, it does not constitute consent to all the rules that the corporation might adopt, regardless of its content. A second condition of consent is that the rules respect the principles of justice and protection of natural and social rights and contain procedures for the effective protection of these rights (or freedoms). This was also confirmed by O.
A. Brownson,[23] who argued that, in a sense, three “constitutions” are involved: first, the constitution of nature, which includes all that the founders called “natural law”; second, the constitution of the company, a set of unwritten rules generally comprehensible to society, formed by a social contract before establishing a government with which it establishes the third, a government constitution. The prerequisite for approval is that the rules to this effect be constitutional. The most fundamental alliance, the Social Pact, is the agreement to come together and form a people, a collectivity which, by definition, is more and different than a simple set of individual interests and wills. This act, in which individuals become a people, is “the true foundation of society” (59). Through the collective renunciation of individual rights and freedoms that one has in the natural state, and the transfer of these rights to the collective body, a new “person” emerges, so to speak. The sovereign is thus formed when free and equal people come together and agree to recreate themselves into a single body focused on the good of all those involved. Just as the individual will is directed towards individual interests, the general will, once formed, oriented towards the common good, is understood and agreed collectively. This version of the social contract contains the idea of reciprocal duties: the sovereign is committed to the good of the individuals who compose him, and each individual is also committed to the good of the whole. Given this, the individual cannot have the freedom to decide whether it is in his own interest to discharge his duties to the sovereign while being allowed to reap the benefits of citizenship.
They must be made to conform to the general will, they must be “forced to be free” (64). Rousseau has two different theories of the social contract. The first is found in his essay Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, commonly known as the Second Discourse, and is an account of man`s moral and political evolution over time, from a state of nature to modern society. As such, it contains his naturalized representation of the social contract, which he considers highly problematic. The second is his normative or idealized theory of the social contract and aims to provide the means by which the problems that modern society has created for us, as set forth in the social contract, can be mitigated. The theory of social contracts also appears in Krito, another dialogue between Plato. Over time, the theory of social contracts spread after Epicurus (341-270 BC), the first philosopher to see justice as a social contract and not as existing in nature due to divine intervention (see below and also Epicurean ethics), decided to put theory at the forefront of his society. Over time, philosophers of traditional political and social thought such as Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau put forward their views on the social contract, which then led to the subject becoming much more common. [Citation needed] The concept of the social contract was originally established by Glaucon, as described by Plato in The Republic, Book II. With the introduction of private property, the initial conditions of inequality became more pronounced. Some have property and others are forced to work for them, and the development of social classes begins. Finally, those who have property note that it would be in their interest to create a government that would protect the private property of those who do not have it, but who can see that they can acquire it by force.
Thus, the government is established by a treaty that claims to guarantee equality and protection for all, even if its real purpose is to petrify the very inequalities that private property has produced. In other words, the Treaty, which claims to be equal in the interest of all, is really in the interest of a few people who have become stronger and richer as a result of the evolution of private property. It is the naturalized social contract that Rousseau sees as responsible for the conflict and competition that modern society suffers. What is the social contract? An agreement between the citizen and the government? No, it would only mean the continuation of [Rousseau`s] idea. The social contract is an agreement between man and man; an agreement from which what we call society must result. In this is the concept of commutative justice, first put forward by the primitive fact of exchange. is replaced by that of distributive justice. If you translate these words, contract, commutative justice, which are the language of the law, into the language of business, and you have commerce, that is, in its highest sense, the act by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers and renounce any claim to govern each other. 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. In most cases, feminism defies any simple or universal definition. In general, however, feminists take women`s experiences seriously, as well as the impact that theories and practices have on women`s lives. Given the pervasive influence of contract theory on social, political, and moral philosophy, it is therefore not surprising that feminists have much to say about whether contract theory is appropriate or appropriate from the perspective of taking women seriously. Examining all feminist responses to social contract theory would take us far beyond the limits of this article. I will therefore focus on only three of these arguments: Carole Pateman`s argument on the relationship between the contract and the subordination of women to men, feminist arguments on the nature of the liberal individual, and the argument of care.
However, the state system that emerged from the social contract was also anarchic (without leadership). Just as individuals had been sovereign in the state of nature and therefore allowed themselves to be guided by self-interest and the absence of rights, so States were now acting in their own interests in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were therefore forced to come into conflict because there was no sovereign beyond the (more powerful) state who was able to impose a system such as social contract laws on everyone by force. In fact, Hobbes` work served as the basis for the realist theories of international relations developed by E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau. Hobbes wrote in Leviathan that people (“we”) need to “terrify it with power,” otherwise people will not observe the law of reciprocity, “(in short) to do to others what would be done for the little ones.” [13] Patriarchal control of women is found in at least three contemporary paradigmatic treatises: the marriage contract, the prostitution contract, and the surrogacy contract. .