What Is the Social Contract Theory - Research Paper Example

Social Contract Theory What is the Social Contract Theory? The social contract theory emanated from the works of early thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, and John Locke. The idea of the social contract relates to equality and freedom principle. The social contract theory came to being as a counter argument to the dominance of political legitimacy theory in medieval Europe. The social contract theory focuses on the liberal tradition in political theory since it focuses on the equality, as well as political freedom of those who would like to enter into any political arrangement. The theory also emphasizes on the rights associated with the principles that relate to equality and freedom. The social contract theory examines the notion of political legitimacy, which states that human beings have no ultimate right to exercise power over each other until the parties involved have mutual consent in an agreement (Rawls 223). According to the social contract theory, a natural basis for morality can be provided by the need for social order. The interaction between people forms the basis for certain incentives within the social system, which determine the peaceful coexistence between people in society. Social contract theory calls for the formation of certain agreements and follows some fundamental rules while at the same time treating each other with a lot of respect. Based on the social contract theory, humans find it beneficial to enter into some form of social contracts that will guide their moral judgments. Without such a contract, people would not exist peacefully as their interaction with one another would be disorderly (Rawls 225). The social contract theory also holds the view that the political, social, and moral obligations of a person largely borrow from the agreements they have made in their society. The modern political and moral theory is related to the social contract theory. In a nutshell, the social contract theory mainly focuses on the consensus that should emanate from explicit consent between several players in an agreement. The consent should be between people who reason properly and no one should be coerced to enter into an agreement. Social contract theorists, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, strived to explain consensus with his explanation of the “general will.” For Rousseau, the social contract theory involves entering into a contract based on the collective interest of the entire group rather than focusing on the interests of a few individuals. The will of an individual should be appropriated with the interests of the entire group so as to have consensus within the group (Rawls 226). There are two key elements of a social contract as discussed by the social contract theory; the first element includes an initial pre-political situation, which is referred to as “state of nature.” The other key element of a social contract is the “original position.” Based on these two elements, all persons can be regarded as equal, and they can leave their initial situation to enjoy the gains of entering into a civil society. Parties entering a social contract have to be motivated by some self interest, and they should also be concerned with other peoples welfare with whom they form a contract (Rawls 228). Is the theory compelling or problematic? Although the social contract theory is compelling in terms of how humans should interact and enter into agreements, it can be regarded as problematic as a result of the criticism leveled against it. In the recent past, philosophers have criticized the social contract theory based on several factors. Most of the critics of the social contract theory include philosophers who are conscious of race, as well as feminists. They argue that the theory is problematic and inadequate since it portrays an incomplete image of the political and moral lives of human beings. Feminists are of the opinion that the social contract theory does not take women issues seriously. Feminists argue that the social contract theory has a pervasive influence on political, social, as well as moral philosophy, which makes the theory inappropriate in addressing issues related to women (Rawls 229). Feminists also term the social contract theory as problematic since it does not comprehensively address the subordination of women by men. Instead, the theory serves to pursue the interests of men and encourage their domination of women. The social contract theory has also been termed as problematic as analysts believe that the theory cannot solve the imbalances between various social classes in the society. Arguments raised state that the theory can only serve to reinforce these differences. As a result, conflict may result, thus making the society problematic and bring about a lot of chaos. Social contract theory has also been critiqued on the basis that it maintains the status quo and challenges any possibility for changes. This is because those who try to oppose or challenge social contract always find themselves being considered wrong (Rawls 230). Rawls modern appropriation of contract theory The modern appropriation of contract theory by John Rawls focuses on the “Law of Peoples”, which is based on the “theory of justice” as developed by Rawls in 1971. His view of the social contract with regard to “justice as fairness” can be regarded as comprehensive since it gives an explanation of the social contract theory in the domestic context (Rawls 232). My view of Rawls’ modern appropriation of the social contract theory is that he explains the theory in a normative sense. His view of social contracts in the modern society can be regarded as accurate since it gives an explanation of the models used by various nations as they interact with one another. Rawls gives a strong argument regarding to the adherence to social justice by various nations. According to him, the key principles that guide justice will be adhered to by nations, although nations will do so in varying degrees (Rawls 233). I find his argument regarding modern social contract convincing since he explains that there are some states, which he refers as outlaw states, which do not follow the principles of justice both at the domestic and international arena. Rawls argues that these states will not be considered as part of the law of peoples since they fail to conform to the laid down rules. Rawls raises the argument that justice can be regarded as fairness and relates these ideas to the conception of justice of justice in the political arena. The modern explanation of the social contract theory by Rawls is that the society is a fair system, which includes cooperation between people who can be regarded as equal and free. Rawls also contends that citizens of a country do not consider social order to be some form of the natural order that is fixed. Moreover, social order does not have to be characterized by aristocratic or religious values in the society (Rawls 235). In my view, these explanations give the reader a clear indication of what social contract entails. As such, Rawls comprehensively discusses the basic principles that ought to be followed in order to achieve parity in society while entering in social contracts and agreements. Rawls trope of the “veil of ignorance” Rawls’ version of the social contract argues that the original position is the starting point for associates where they tend to use “a veil of ignorance” to reason. The “veil of ignorance” means that associates may not be aware of their social status in the society they will construct. This concept acts as the basis for theorizing principles of justice with regard to equality in society. With the use of this principle, Rawls goes ahead to imagine a position in which those who represent various nations have to choose the principles that will help solve conflicts between nations. Under the principle of “veil of ignorance”, Rawls argues that the representatives are aware that they represent nations although they may not know about the circumstances regarding their own nations (Rawls 237). Using this principle, Rawls talks of the biases and contingencies that go hand in hand with historical fate. This is meant to refer to the argument that people in contracts lack knowledge on the status of their respective states. The notion of veils of ignorance means that there is a way in which human beings should reason (Rawls 240). In my opinion, I find the trope of “veil of ignorance” by Rawls compelling and convincing in terms of how it explains the notion of justice and equality with regard to the social contract theory. This trope gives a clear discussion of how people involved in social contracts should reason and the basic rules that guide interactions, both domestically and internationally. While concluding, it is worth noting that the social contract theory refers to an approach that describes the agreements formed between people in society. The theory explains that social contracts should be formed based on mutual consent between various persons and that there should be no coercion. The social contract theory is with no controversy as it has faced accusations from feminists who claim that the theory is biased. Feminists argue that the social contract theory favors a patriarchal society, as opposed to giving equal treatment to both men and women. Works Cited Rawls, John. “Justice as Fairness: Political not metaphysical.” Philosophy and public affairs 14.3 (1985): 223-251. Print. Read More