> Mike Cook Portfolio » Social Contract Or Agreement

Social Contract Or Agreement

Posted on Apr 12, 2021 in Uncategorized

Epicurus, in the fourth century BC, seemed to have had a strong sense of social contract, with justice and law rooted in mutual understanding and benefit, as evidenced, among other things, by the lines of his Main Doctrines (see also epicurean ethics): Samuel Freeman recently highlighted how the emphasis on the third perspective – the citizen in a well-ordered society – shows the importance of actual adequacy in the theory of the Treaty. According to Freeman`s interpretation, the social contract must meet the condition of the advertisement. He (2007b:15) writes: According to Locke, the state of nature is not a condition of the individual, as is the case for Hobbes. On the contrary, it is populated by mothers and fathers with their children or families – what he calls the “marital 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 who represent their families gather in the state of nature and who each abandon the executive to punish those who go beyond natural law and leave that power to the 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 get out of the state of nature and shape society, they make “a politically under-government body” (para. 97) and submit to the will of that body. One joins such a body, either from its beginnings or after being founded by others, only with explicit consent. After creating a political society and a government by their approval, people receive three things they lacked in the state of nature: laws, judges to decide laws and the executive power to enforce those laws.

Each human being therefore gives the power to protect himself and punish violators of the natural law of the government he created by the pact. According to Pateman`s argument, a number of feminists have also questioned the nature of the person, which is at the heart of contract theory. The liberal individual, the entrepreneur, is represented by the Hobbesian man, the owner of Lockes, the “Noble Savage” of Roussau, the person of Rawls in the original position and Gauthier Robinson Crusoe. The liberal individual is considered universal: without violence, without sex, without class, without body and considered an abstract and generalized model of humanity. However, many philosophers have argued that if we take a closer look at the characteristics of the liberal individual, what we find is not a representation of universal humanity, but a historically localized and specific type of person. C.B. Macpherson, for example, argued that the Hobbesian is in particular a bourgeois man, with the characteristics we would expect from a person at the time of the emergence of capitalism that characterized modern-day Europe. Feminists have also argued that the liberal individual is a particular, historical and embodied person. (Like racist philosophers like Charles Mills, which are discussed below.) Specifically, they argued that the person who is at the center of liberal theory and the social contract is gender specific. Christine Di Stefano shows in her 1991 book, Configurations of Masculinity, that a number of historically important modern philosophers can be understood to develop their theories from the point of view of virility, as thought in modern times.

She argues that Hobbes` conception of the liberal individual, which laid the foundation for the dominant modern image of man, is particularly masculine in that it is conceived as atomism and loneliness and owes nothing to another person, especially his mother. The man from Hobbes is thus radically individual, in a way that is particularly due to the character of modern virility. Virginia Held, in 1993, argued in her book Feminist Morality that the theory of social contract was implicitly based on an idea of the person who could best be described as a “businessman.” It is primarily a matter for the businessman to maximize his own interests, taken into account individually, and he enters into contracts as a means of achieving this objective.