According to the social contract, individuals and organizations agree to roles in society by making an implicit agreement. The term “social contract” was coined by Thomas Hobbes, who wrote on the subject of political philosophy in 1651 (Christman 2002, p26).
According to Christman (2002, p.28), “arguments based on the social contract stated that individuals are bound together by consent to accept general norms and obligations necessary to prevent one another from being harmed or any other form of evil.” Social contract theory had a significant role in establishing the notion that because political authority must be derived through government consent, it is primarily linked with political and moral theories as they are represented by Thomas Hobbes.
Prices start at $12
Prices start at $11
Prices start at $12
While Hobbes is credited with inventing the idea of a social contract, it was Thomas Hobbes’s contemporaries John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau who expanded on his work in order to develop social contract theory, which has exerted a significant influence on political and moral thought throughout the modern west. The notion that humans want to understand what occurs when they are parted from political authority began with humanity’s natural urge to learn about what happens when people are away from power (Christman 2002, p.48).
According to (Christian 1995), “This motivated the social contract theorist to seek for methods of demonstrating how a rational person would want to surrender his or her freedom in order to obtain political order benefits.” The paper focuses on how social contract influenced western political theory. Social Contract recognizes that politics and law are human constructions, not natural phenomena (Christman 2002, p.).
“By benefiting only the involved individuals, political order and social contract establish a path to an end.” According to Hobbes (2002, p.26), “political order and social contract create a means toward an end by benefitting just the participants.” Election or other methods such as force are used by several social contract theorists to correct faults with the law and political order. The state of nature was transformed through a social contract.
According to Thomas Hobbes (2002, p.26), in the state of nature, people’s lives were short, brutish, poor, lonely, and horrible because there was no societal protection owing to selfishness and the lack of rights and contracts. In the Social contract, individuals surrendered their rights in the hope that others would do so as well. Hobbes (2002, p.26) stated, “It ultimately developed into a state system with a sovereign entity issuing rules for society’s social interactions.” There was no leadership in the state structure that resulted from people giving up their rights (Christman 2002, p88).
Individual states engaged in rivalry just as individuals would in a state of nature. They lacked sovereignty and had no inherent rights, so they competed with one another for their own interests and benefits. Because there was no sovereign state, states were in contention. Different liberationists offered various interpretations of the social contract throughout history. The social contract was created in early western political thought. It was considered an intellectual statement to European political ideas, in which kings, vassals, and lords were regarded as the formation of political, legal, and military affairs (Rousseau 1987, p16).
The social contract was formed by discussing kings, lords, nobles, princesses, and bishops’ responsibilities during much later years. The contract was originally conceived as a means of keeping individuals safe from the state by ensuring that they observed their duties. Rousseau (1987) argued that the social contract is something that was historically in existence and has been discussed on collective bargain terms (p30). As a result, it served as a framework for what was positive in establishing a just society or state.
Social contract ideas dominated political thinking during the radical reformation period through mid-eighteenth century, suggesting that political ideas were based on social contract theories. When developing their theory, political theorists took into account the social contract. The term “social contract” was still in use in the United States of America after its civil war emergency, where it was used to mean succession rights in the southern United States (Kelly & Boucher 1994, p.87).
It was thought that the Social contract expired after it was mocked by Bentham and Hume, but it has continued to exist as an argument for state rights up until the present day. The social contract also served as a tool for critical analysis of public policy in John Rawls’s writings, an American political philosopher.
The social contract has been employed to support a variety of western viewpoints. It was utilized in 17th-century England by the Commonwealth’s rulers as a mechanism for executing the king (McClelland 1996, p.135). A social contract may be used as a rationale for good governance. Furthermore, it was dubbed a type of political revolution and, lastly, a method of treating everyone equally regardless of race, origin, or color (Cristo 2003 p38).
The social contract was developed by a western political philosopher named Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The majority of political theorists utilized the social contract theory in their theory of construction and expansion. Social contracts have been built on the principle of individual rational and self-interested consent to ensure political authority (Cristo 2003, p 48).
It compares and contrasts civil society and the state of nature to evaluate and demonstrate the function and value of organized government. It has played a significant part in defining the proper governance to Western communities and establishing the greatest state of governance to maintain. The social contract is explicit about instances when the government is really important, which has aided in drafting fundamental obligations and rights for citizens (McClelland 1996, p.145).
The social contract idea justifies the sovereign power while attempting to safeguard individuals from excessive government oppression (Christman 2002, p.36). The social contract has influenced the constitution’s development. McClelland (1996, p.145) noted that, “It established unwritten norms for a society that were subsequently used for governance, leading to the drafting of a government charter.”
A social contract theory has played a significant part in the growth of Western political democracy. Westerners have been able to exercise their democracy as citizens with the right to make their own choices when voting, according to Dunn (1993, p28). Individuals have framed rights and self-interest in line with their own decisions.
The social contract improved the history of freedom. Each person was granted their own rights that no other individual could take away unless by law, which binds the people (Kelly & Boucher 1994, p.209). In contrast to a state of nature, the social contract led to the formation of governments that enhanced citizen democracy.
The theory of the social contract explained why people made a commitment to each other. It also encouraged the formation of the state’s constitution (Cristo 2003, p98). The structure of the state’s constitutional law was determined by social contract principles, which stated how the sovereign powers’ interests should be taken into account when drafting legislation.
According to Dunn (1994, p.85), each state is assigned its own constitution that cannot infringe on the rights of other states in order to improve people’s lives in society. The constitution may have jurisdiction over the leader’s duty and how they would carry out their responsibilities.
The social contract, which was formed by Rousseau in his Discourses on the Sciences and Arts (1755), captured the idea that individual obedience is not required when making a congruent decision; hence it is necessary for citizens to make decisions based on their own preferences rather than political pressure (Rouseau 1987, p19). Obedience is linked to state governance, although not all political choices need people’s compliance (McClelland 1996, p163).
Others act within the confines of the law due to fear of punishment, not because they are compelled to. Every person has his or her own set of rights. One may elect to vote or not to without permission. This was made easier by the end of dictatorship governments since citizens had a better understanding and grasp of their rights, thus they should be protected.
Eastern political theorists have tended to focus on the exchange and integration between their constitution and government using a social contract paradigm (McClelland 1996, p182). Individuals sacrifice their liberty for the benefit of others in order to join the community through the social contract form, which is based on the agreement of association.
There is yet another partnership in which the society and the government collaborate to influence political theories (Jones 2002, p89). Government should minimize the resource necessary for maintaining order, maximize tax revenue, and guarantee strong state defense, regardless of whether it is a republic or a democracy.
The citizens’ dependence on the government for essential resources, such as education and health care, gives the government power and legitimacy. As a result, the state might be regarded as a sort of social contract that has been formed between people who are governed by it (Rousseau 1987, p.29).
The concept of social contracts had a significant impact on women’s political involvement. Women were thought to be useless in politics since they were considered not required to participate. When the aims of social contract creation are frustrated by the government and political parties being unable to alleviate the tension, the social contract is occasionally broken.
The social contract has influenced western political thought in several ways. It has aided the formation of political parties, democracy, obedience to the law, good governance, and even legal creation (Rousseau 1987, p.26). Social contracts also had an influence on political theories as they were constructed based on social contract ideas. As a result, social contracts have had a consistent impact on western political theory (Jones 2002, p.165). The social contract has been subject to criticism owing to its role in moral and political thought, with feminists and thinkers who are aware of race pointing out that it is an incomplete symbol of morality and politics because it is used as a disguise.
While the term “corrective” has been used to describe what is going on in Islamic law, it is a more neutral way of describing how a thing affects a person’s health. In fact, many scholars have termed social contract as “corrective.” It also shaped Western political theory because it strongly influenced John Locke and other thinkers who developed the concept known as the sovereignty of man (or individual).
The idea of social contract theory is that man lived in the state of nature until the 17th century. They had no government, and there was now legislation to govern them. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are three significant thinkers who advanced the notion of a social contract.
The nineteenth century’s most famous and prominent figure was Immanuel Kant. He is often recognized for his contributions to metaphysical reasoning, logic, ethics, and aesthetics. The twentieth century saw the rise of moral and political theory under John Rawls’ version of social contract theory, which was then followed by David Gauthier. Social contract theory has been criticized by feminists and race-aware philosophers who claim it fails to account for our moral and political lives in their totality.
Another idea is that humans are not naturally self-interested, but rather rational; he thinks people have it in them to be sensible when they pursue their interests. Rationality is a tool that summarizes the greatest approach to any objectives we might have. As a result of this, Hobbes believes men are born selfish and reasonable, thus they will obey the authority of a Sovereign in order to live in a civil society with shared interests.
The state of nature, according to Hobbes, is when people are only self-interested and thus more or less equal to one another. In a society governed by the State of Nature, Hobbes thinks that life would be miserable for everyone since everyone is always afraid of being murdered by someone else in this condition. Because men are rational, they can escape this society by recognizing the laws of nature.
The natural rules may help people trapped in a State of Nature civilization see how to break out and establish a civil society. The most essential thing to remember when discussing the laws of nature is that everyone must be willing to seek peace while also preserving the right to defend oneself only if others do not pursue peace.
Here, we are dealing with social contract theory, which is a topic that has not been so popular in the accounting field but nonetheless needs to be addressed. Because several complicated political issues are linked to it, many people disagree with the idea of social contract theory.
Individuals with a strong belief in the free enterprise model or laissez-faire principle of individualism believe that organizations benefit society by generating wealth, providing aid, and creating job possibilities. This viewpoint suggests that businesses may flourish if they concentrate on making money rather than divisive and subjective ethical issues.
It is difficult to fabricate the impact that social contract theory has had, both within philosophy and across society (Azcentralcom, 2017). In his 18th century work Discourse on Political Economy, Jean Jacques Rousseau offers a description of social contract theory. According to him, people in nature’s condition are not miserable as Hobbes made them out to be; rather, they are happy and self-reliant.
However, mankind’s better nature has been perverted by society and its organizations. “Man is born free yet everywhere he is enslaved!” For that reason, we know that government must endure for the preservation of our nation’s ideals (Academyedu, 2017).
Even high school and college students are required to go to school all around the world. Students in schools not only receive basic education, but they also discover a lot about themselves. It’s claimed that during the first 20 years of one’s life, one finds out who they truly are. One of the most personal and intricate aspects of an individual is their moral values.
However, picking just one is quite hard. Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, Kantianism, and even Social Contract Theory are all well-known moral theories. These ideas were created by some of the world’s greatest thinkers.
According to Hobbes, “morality should be defined as a practical solution for self-interested human beings” (EMP pg.82). We all desire to live well and prosper, according to Hobbes; we require a cooperative social order in order to do so. It is not possible to live well without rules. Theories of the social contract have two goals: morality and government.
The Social Contract Thesis states that morality is necessary for social coexistence and that the role of government is to enforce ethical norms. The Social Contract Theory may be simply stated as “morality consists in the set of rules, governing behavior that reasonable people will accept, on the condition that others do as well.”
Hobbes is talking about this when he says, “This is what I’m referring to. The state of nature would be terrible because of the four fundamental necessities that every human being needs. ‘There is equality in need’ (EMP pg. 83). Everyone requires the same basic necessities for survival, such as food, shelter, and clothing. ‘Scarcity exists’ (EMP pg. 83)
“There is equality in human power” (EMP pg. 83). This straightforward concept implies that even if someone is smarter or braver than another, they may be brought down. The last one is “the”e is a scarcity of altruism” (E”P pg 84). There isn’isn’tugh for everyone because everyone has the same fundamental needs.
The world would be utter pandemonium; everyone would be vying for everything. In such a world, no one would triumph. There would be no rules or order in the world if the Social Contract Theory isn’isn’te, and the world will be at war with each other. Society must work together to avoid returning to the state of nature, and when everyone works together more good comes out of it.
According to Rousseau, the best method to establish a political society in the face of social challenges is through a social contract. He thought that legitimate political power stems from a societal contract signed by all citizens for their common good. In order to establish freedom and equality under the law, everyone gives up the same amount of rights and responsibilities.
When micro-analyzing the application of modern-day legislation, there is a “per”asive sense of unjust treatment” (C”nley and O’BaO’Barr2: 5) when looking at how these laws are applied. The use of words to influence the law and judicial hearing is demonstrated by conversation analysis and discourse analysis.
Misunderstandings of the intricacy of language and culture disadvantage minorities who come into contact with the legal system. Anyone who does not understand the courcourt’sguage is entitled to an interpreter under a basic principle of justice. While a court interpreter aids in the equalization of non-English speakers, American preconceptions about languages put them at a disadvantage.
Referential Transparency is the notion that words in one language can be readily translated word for word into another. When a prosecutor asks, “tra”slate the witnwitness’sponses word for word,” (C”nley & O’BaO’Barr5: 150), Conley and O’BaO’Barre that this is impossible because no two languages can be directly compared to each other. In the process of translation, a nuanced narrative in a different language becomes diluted.
The belief that everyone in a country speaks the same language is once again exposed, this time through National Language Ideology, which claims that every citizen of a nation speaks the same language. In an Oregon murder trial, a Cuban Spanish interpreter is called for Mixtec, an Indigenous Mexican language.
The languages spoken by the jury are not identical, and their assumption of interchangeability generates confusion during the witness testimony. In our legal system, there are distinctively marked and unmarked sorts of speech, and if you’you’reale or non-English speaking, you may face discrimination.
Sally MerrMerry’sk at the UN has focused on a culture of human rights that is English-speaking, secular, Universalist, and law-governed, which does not resonate with many non-Western nations. As a result, countries, where English is spoken by educated persons, are more active in debates; non-English speaking nations must translate conversations into their native languages and interpret from there.
Standard Language Ideology is a concept that emerged among US intellectuals in the early 20th century, which promotes English as an ideal standard language. In one instance, a defendant who spoke Mixtec, a Mesoamerican language spoken in Mexico, was given with a Cuban Spanish-speaking interpreter who had no knowledge of Mixtec. Translation difficulties occurred owing to Referential Transparency: “a”sumption that expressions in one language can be unproblematically… translated ‘v’rbatim’ ‘nto another” “Conley & O’O’Barr005: 150).
The attorney requested the witness to use Spanish terms despite the fact that he or she dididn’tnow Spanish. This trial, as well as UN gatherings, makes non-English speakers conform to western rhetoric that is difficult to adjust to and loses the subtlety of the original.