What is Social Contract theory? Can it be defended against its critics? If not, how are they correct? If it ca

Answer 1

The social contract is an impicit agreement among a society. In theory it is the very basis for government. Citizens agree to limit their own freedoms by obeying mutually agreed upon rules, and in return get to enjoy the protections and benefits of society.

Anyone may choose to violate the contract in rather obvious ways - by violating the law. Society is then, in theory, justified in applying a penalty just as any contract violator might recieve, in this case not only withdrawing much of the protections of society but usually withdrawing even more freedoms than a normal citizen would have given up.

In theory, the only way not to have some kind of social contract is to not be in a society. Roommates form limited social contracts when they agree to split the chores, etc etc. People naturally make agreements and predictions about what will happen, and when they coincide it's percieved as a contract. Even in a tyranny, where the contract is simply, "Do as I say or I will try to physically injure you."

Whether people are justified in resisting social contracts they don't agree with is a matter of more protracted discussion. Socrates (yes, the idea is that old) supposedly said that since he owed everything he was to his society, if they pronounced the death sentance on him it would be wrong for him to try to disobey it and escape. Some suggest the natural modifications in the contract tend to cause changes in the leadership (through more democratic processes) or outright rebellion (where democracy is not possible).

One of the biggest problems for the idea of the social contract is the idea of cheaters. We all know that there are people who break the law and are not caught. Likewise, where there is corruption people who are generally obeying the contract might be punished anyway. A defender of the theory would say that these are all simply complex variations in the contract itself - people agree to obey even if they won't be caught every time, and the mere fact that the corruption exists implies an implicit consent on behalf of the governed to the corruption (or they'd throw it off!).

Like most theories, however, the question is not firmly decided either way. Hope that helps!

Answer 2

If I remember correctly, the Social Contract theory was proposed in the 1700s by Jean Jacques Rousseau and basically states that society originally arose because each person agrees, conciously or unconciously, to be a part of that society, to accept the majority of its norms and morals. If true, this has a lot of implications for law and morality today. Can it be defended? That's a bigger issue than I can really tackle! You might want to look up Rousseau and see what kind of arguments the critics are making and what the rebuttal is/was. Sorry I couldn't be more help!

Answer 3

The theory assumes that by being born into a community, you make an implicit agreement to live by its rules. Rousseau and Hobbes are the primary thinkers on this topic. By virtue of the social contract, you know what your rights, duties, responsibilities and privileges are. According to Rousseau, your first duty is to conform to what he calls the general will. Unfortunately he was vague in defining this. It's clear that he means something other than the will or opinion of the majority, but exactly what he meant has caused a lot of debate (and consequent violence). The Social Contract can be used to support monarchism, republicanism, democracy, socialism and fascism.
Anarchists would argue that the premise is absurd - that people agree to no such contract just by being born in, let us say, England. Instead, the social contract (to abide peaceably with each other, to treat each other with courtesy and respect, etc.) is only in effect as long as everyone unanimously agrees that this is so.
Under Fascism, the individual has no right to change, alter, or leave the social contract. Only the State has the power to change the details of the contract, as all legitimacy resides with the State, as opposed to with the people, as republicanism has it.

Answer 4

The idea behind the social contract is that our mere existence obligates us to 'society', which is a euphamism for the state.

In its original form, it was related only to the obligation on the part of property owners to pay taxes to the state. But the argument rests on the assumption that without the state, there would be no recognition of private property. Case studies in anarchy show this is a false assumption, so there really is nothing whatsoever holding up the idea of 'social contract'.

It turns out it's really just all about who has the guns.

Answer 5

Nope, it can't be logically defended unless you believe that it is correct. And that the only purpose of our existence is to serve the government. It cannot coexist with the rule of law, or the idea of individual freedom. Because no person belongs to himself but is the property of the state.

On the other hand if you believe the purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals, then you are in agreement with our declaration of independence.

Answer 6

could you sense it needed to look after your self against unsubstantiated claims made by the mentally impaired? Get genuine those are an identical classification of people who think of Bush brought about typhoon Katrina. No proff of a airplane crash on the Pentagon? truly ? 2 hundred plus witnesses and each and all of the plane debris on internet site isn't info adequate for you ?

Answer 7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

I would say it's too idealistic....I assumes every citizen can cognitively understand the contract and comply thereof...Realistically, there are always people in a society who are mentally/neurologically/behaviorallly compromised who can't comply, so this would throw off this entire attempt at balance of a society.