Although contracts are different in their presentation of individuals` reasons, some being drawn to more objective accounts (Scanlon 2013), most Hobbes follow in modeling individual reasons as subjectively, motivating internally or at least agent. This may be due to skepticism about moral reasons in general (Gauthier, 1986, Binmore 1998, a conviction on the overwhelming importance of self-interest in the social order (Hobbes 1651, Buchanan 2000 [1975], Brennan and Buchanan 1985), a concern to take seriously individual differences of opinion in modern society, including differences in objectivity (Gaus 2016, 2011a; Muldoon 2017; Moehler 2014, 2015, shortly) or because this approach corresponds to the most developed theories of rational choice in the social sciences (Binmore 2005, Buchanan 2000 [1975]). In all cases, the reasons why individuals agree with certain rules or principles, particularly their own reasons and are not “good” from an impartial point of view. Of course, the same individuals can deal with what they perceive as an impartial good or another non-individualistic idea – they don`t need to be selfish – but what is important to them, and therefore their reasons will be different from each other. This point, as Rawls points out in his later work, is crucial to understanding political justification in a diverse society where members of a society cannot reasonably be expected to have similar conceptions of the property (Rawls 1996). The most recent contract accounts place even more emphasis on heterogeneity (Southwood 2010, Gaus 2016, Muldoon 2017, Moehler to come, Thrasher 2014b, Thrasher and Vallier 2015, Thrasher 2015). Social contracts can be explicit, such as laws. B, or implicitly, like. B raise his hand in the classroom to talk. The U.S. Constitution is often cited as an explicit example of a part of the U.S. social contract.
It explains what the government can and cannot do. People who choose to live in America accept to be governed by the moral and political obligations defined in the social contract of the Constitution. The starting point of most theories of societal contracts is a study of the human condition without a political order (described by Thomas Hobbes as the “natural state”). [4] In this state, the individual`s actions are related only to his personal power and conscience. From this common starting point, social contract theorists try to demonstrate why rational individuals would willingly agree to give up their natural freedom in order to obtain the benefits of political order. Hugo Grotius (1625), Thomas Hobbes (1651), Samuel von Pufendorf (1673), John Locke (1689), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) and Immanuel Kantuel (1797) are close to the concept of political authority. Grotius claimed that individuals had natural rights. As you know, Thomas Hobbes said that in a “state of nature,” human life would be “lonely, poor, wicked, brutal and short.” Without political order and law, every person would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the “right to everything” and thus the freedom to plunder, rape and murder; There would be an endless “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men unite to create, through a social contract, a political community (civil society) in which they obtain the security of all, in exchange for their submission to an absolute ruler, a man or an assembly of men.
