Whether social contracts are explicit or implicit, they provide a valuable framework for harmony in society. The central assertion that social contract theory is approaching is that law and political order are not natural, but human creations. The social contract and the political order it creates are only the means to an end – the benefit of the individuals involved – and are legitimate only to the extent that they fulfill their part of the agreement. Hobbes argued that the government is not a party to the original treaty and that citizens are not obliged to submit to the government if it is too weak to act effectively to suppress factionism and civil unrest. According to other social contract theorists, if the government does not guarantee their natural rights (locke) or satisfy the best interests of society (called “general will” by Rousseau), citizens can withdraw their duty of obedience or change direction through elections or other means, including, if necessary, violence. Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable and that, therefore, God`s rule replaced governmental authority, while Rousseau believed that democracy (self-government) was the best way to ensure prosperity while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. Locke`s concept of social contract was cited in the United States Declaration of Independence. Social contract theories were eclipsed in favor of utilitarianism, Hegelianism, and Marxism in the 19th century; they were built in the 20th century. == References ===== External links ===* Official website [5] As with other treaties, revocation comes with penalties – so citizens who choose to stop paying taxes can still be punished. Philip Pettit (born 1945) argued in Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (1997) that the theory of the social contract, which is classically based on the consent of the governed, should be changed. Rather than arguing for explicit consent, which can always be made, Pettit argues that the absence of effective rebellion against him is the only legitimacy of a treaty. The concepts behind the theory of social contracts come from ancient Greek philosophers: Socrates used a theoretical argument to explain to Krito why he must submit to prison and the death penalty in accordance with the law.

The philosopher Thomas Hobbes expanded the theory of social contracts during the Enlightenment; Since then, philosophers from different perspectives have contributed to our understanding of the theory. With the introduction of private property, the initial conditions of inequality became more pronounced. Some have property and others are forced to work for them, and the development of social classes begins. Finally, those who have property note that it would be in their interest to create a government that would protect the private property of those who do not have it, but who can see that they can acquire it by force. Thus, the government is established by a treaty that claims to guarantee equality and protection for all, even if its real purpose is to petrify the very inequalities that private property has produced. In other words, the Treaty, which claims to be equal in the interest of all, is really in the interest of a few people who have become stronger and richer as a result of the evolution of private property. It is the naturalized social contract that Rousseau sees as responsible for the conflict and competition that modern society suffers. A social contract is an implicit or explicit agreement that governs the behavior of individuals and organizations in a particular context, such as a workplace, culture, nation, or social media site. Given these characteristics, we can consider social contract theories as a general schematic form. Social contract theories are a model of justification that has several general parameters that are defined differently in different theories. What distinguishes contractary theories is how they specify these general parameters.

The purpose of the model is to describe the reasons why we support and adhere to a set of rules, principles or social institutions. This is done by showing that some representatives of the model choose who would accept these rules in a particular selection situation. Basically, there are two relevant groups of people (me and me*). The first set is the model selection device (I), which is built in the “representation device” as in the original position. The second group consists of real individuals (I*), whose conditions of interaction must be based on the contract. For the opinion of the contractors (I) to be relevant to the actual participants (I*), the arguments of the former must be shared in some way by the latter. Another variable is deliberative attitude (M), in which model (I) supports certain principles or rules, principles or institutions (R). In light of all this, we can identify a general pattern of social contract theories: this racial contract is, to some extent, a meta-contract that determines the limits of personality and the parameters of inclusion and exclusion in all the other contracts 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 as fully human and to identify all others, especially the natives with whom they began to come into contact, as “others”: non-white and therefore not fully human. .