What Is Social Agreement Definition

On October 15, 2021 by heart

Social contract theory, almost as old as philosophy itself, is the idea that the moral and/or political obligations of individuals depend on a contract or agreement between them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something like a social contract argument to explain to Kribto why he must stay in prison and accept the death penalty. However, the theory of social contracts is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is for the first time fully presented and defended by Thomas Hobbes. According to Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best-known proponents of this extremely influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories of moral and political theory in the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained a philosophical momentum thanks to John Rawls` Kantian version of social contract theory, and new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others followed. More recently, philosophers have expressed new criticisms of social contract theory from various angles. Feminists and race-conscious philosophers, in particular, have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political life, and may actually obscure some of the ways in which the contract itself is parasitic to the subjugations of classes of people. The principles according to which individuals in the original position, behind the veil of ignorance, would choose to regulate a society at the most elementary level (that is, even before a constitution) are rightly called by Rawls the two principles of justice. These two principles determine the distribution of civil liberties as well as social and economic goods. The first principle states that every person in a society should have as much fundamental freedom as possible, as long as everyone is granted the same freedoms. That is, there should be as much civil liberty as possible as long as these assets are evenly distributed. (This would exclude, for example, a scenario in which there would be a greater amount of civil liberties than in an alternative scenario, but in which those freedoms were not evenly distributed among citizens.) The second principle states that while social and economic inequalities can be equitable, they must be equally accessible to all (i.e.

no one should in principle be denied access to greater economic benefits), and that these inequalities must be for the benefit of all. This means that economic inequality is only justified if the least advantaged member of society is nevertheless better off than with alternative arrangements. Only if a rising tide really lifts all boats up can economic inequality be allowed in a just society. The method of the original position supports this second principle, called the principle of difference, because if we are behind the veil of ignorance and therefore do not know what our situation will be in society once the veil of ignorance is lifted, we will only accept principles that will be to our advantage, even if we find ourselves in the least favored position of society. .

Comments are closed.