Social Contract Theory Definition World History

Simple Post Nuptial Agreement Template
marzo 31, 2022
Speaker Agreement Contract
abril 1, 2022

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 (i.e. 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 is 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 must 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 totality of civil liberties than in an alternative scenario, but in which these freedoms would not be 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 be denied access to greater economic benefits in principle), and that these inequalities must be for the benefit of all. This means that economic inequality is only justified if the most advantaged member of society is nevertheless better off than would be the case in the case of other arrangements. Only if a rising tide really lifts all boats up can economic inequality be taken into account in a just society. The method of the original position supports this second principle, which is called the principle of difference, because if we stand 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 accept only those principles that are to our advantage, even if we find ourselves in the least favored position of society.

While Rousseau`s social contract is based on popular sovereignty rather than individual sovereignty, there are other theories defended by individualists, libertarians, and anarchists that do not aim to accept more than negative rights and create only a limited state, if any. This racial contract is, to some extent, a meta-treatise that determines the limits of personality and the parameters of inclusion and exclusion in all the other treatises that follow. It manifests itself both formally and informally. It is an agreement, originally between European men in early modern times, to identify themselves as «white» and therefore fully human, and to identify all others, especially the natives with whom they came into contact, as «others»: non-white and therefore not fully human. Thus, race is not only a social construct, as others have argued, it is above all a political construct created to serve a particular political objective and the political objectives of a particular group. The treaty allows some people to treat other people, as well as the country in which they live, as resources that can be exploited. The enslavement of millions of Africans and the appropriation of the Americas by those who inhabited them are examples of this racial treatise at work in history (such as Locke`s claim that Native Americans did not own the land on which they lived because they did not cultivate it and therefore did not own it). This contract is not hypothetical, as Hobbes describes the one argued in his Leviathan. It is a real contract or a set of contracts concluded by real men of history.

It is found in documents such as the Papal Bull and Locke`s writings on Native Americans and have affected historical events such as european voyages of discovery and colonization of Africa, Asia, and the Americas. The racial treaty allows and justifies certain people, because of their alleged superiority, to exploit the peoples, countries and resources of other races. Second, social contract theories are drawn towards certain party representations in order to determine the electoral situation. However, this objective of determination may lead to the elimination of the pluralism of the parties, which was originally the impetus for the award of contracts. In his lectures on the history of political philosophy, Rawls tells us that «a normalization of the interests attributed to parties» is «common to the doctrines of social contracts» and that it is necessary to unite the perspectives of the different parties in order to build a «common position» (2007, 226). Here, Rawls seems to indicate that it is necessary to «normalize» the perspectives of the parties in order to reach a determination in the contractual process. .

Comments are closed.