Social Contract Ethics

Nearly as ancient as philosophy itself, social contract theory asserts that the moral and
political duties of individuals are determined by their participation in the formation of the
community in which they live. One of the hypotheses about the origins of the state is the social
contract hypothesis. It has existed since the time of the Greek sophists, but it has only recently
gained attention in the hands of the great triumvirate. The word social refers to the society in
which these individuals reside, but the phrase contract refers to an agreement or pledge made
between two or more individuals and a group/society. There were many different hypotheses
about the birth of the state, but the social contract theory described it in a methodical way.
According to this idea, the society or the state came into existence as a result of a contract signed
between the individual and the society, or a contract established among the individual
individuals. It argues that the circumstances in the state of nature deteriorated at some time, and
as a result of this predicament, the people entered into a contract, under which the people agreed
to relinquish some of their rights to the sovereign.

Quick Background

People who live together tend to develop a set of principles to help them get along and
sustain social cohesiveness. In addition to enacting regulations that may mitigate the harm
caused by people acting on their irrational wants; society must engage in a tug of war between
the demands of society as a whole and the rights of the individual. As a consequence of these
acts, society strives to build an implicit agreement between people that secures the well-being of
everyone in return for the population's consent to abide by the conditions of the contract. This
may be a challenging task. Plato observes in Theaetetus that creating a single social system in
which everyone might live and prosper poses an inherent obstacle in a community with many
varied persons, interests, wants, and desires.
Examples of Social Contracts

Several philosophers have presented their own ethical views about what forms a valid
social contract. There are several ethical quandaries that force us to consider society's role in
addressing a problem, increasing, or restricting freedom, or providing for or taking away from a
person or group. As a result, implementing and researching these numerous social contract ideas
might lead to an ethical course of conduct in specific situations.

Social Contracts according to Socrates

Socrates believes that a just man is one who, among other things, abides by the rules of
the state. Allegiance and respect must be shown to government since it is the most essential
institution in both moral and political terms. Only males are aware of this, and they behave in
response. Justice, on the other hand, is more than just following the rules and hoping that others
would do the same. Just people are happy people because justice is the condition of a well-
regulated spirit. But unlike Glaucon's suggestion, justice involves more than only reciprocal
compliance of rules. It also includes the state and its laws that maintain it. Socrates, on the other
hand, rejects the claim that social contract theory is the original source of justice,
notwithstanding Plato's description of the argument at the center of the theory.

Social Contracts according to Thomas Hobbes

Hobbes thought that human people are fundamentally animalistic, aggressive, and
destined for anarchy if they are not restrained by any social order. As such, he advocated for a
social compact that established an authoritarian state in order to provide society with an absolute
ruler capable of preventing anarchy and social collapse. Under the contract, the ruler would agree
to protect the natural rights of the people, act as an arbiter of disputes, and establish just laws
(despite the fact that the ruler himself would be above the law); in exchange, all who live within
the ruler's jurisdiction would accept the ruler's authority and obey all laws. Furthermore, the
Hobbesian social contract did not enable anybody with a minority viewpoint to "opt out" of the
pact; if you lived inside the jurisdiction, you were obligated by the rules.
Social Contracts according to John Locke

Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that people are fundamentally rational and nonviolent by
nature. As a result, Locke envisioned a social compact that was more tolerant of individual
liberty and rejected the concept of a superior, absolute ruler. Locke claimed that power should be
vested in democratically elected governmental institutions that protect individual rights like as
free speech, free exercise, and property ownership. Many contemporary democracies are founded
on Locke's ideals of individual rights and democratically elected, accountable governance.

Social Contracts according to Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Rousseau argued in his work Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality
Among Men that, prior to the evolution of civil society, human beings were best off living in
what he called the "State of Nature," where people lived secluded, simple, uncompetitive lives
where the few needs they had were met by the environment around them. He maintained that it
was not until human populations developed that characteristics of civilization such as private
property and class structure produced the scorn and greed that characterize contemporary
society. "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains," he quotes in his 1762 work The
Social Contract. Despite acknowledging the impossibility of humans returning to the State of
Nature, Rousseau contends that a proper social contract involves individuals engaging in small,
direct democracies (in which rulers and ruled shared the same interests, unlike monarchies) to
create a "general will" that all will follow.

Implications of Social Contracts