Theory Of Social Agreement

Samuel Freeman recently highlighted how the emphasis on the third perspective – the citizen in a well-ordered society – shows the importance of real convergence in Rawls` theory of contracts. According to Freeman`s interpretation, the social contract must fulfill the condition of the public. He (2007b:15) writes: These views may seem contradictory at first glance in the Krmit and in the Republic: in the first dialogue, Socrates uses a social-contractual argument to show why it is only for him to remain in prison, while in the latter he rejects the social contract as a source of justice. However, these two points of view are compatible. From Socrates` point of view, a righteous person is someone who recognizes, among other things, his commitment to the state by obeying its laws. The state is the most fundamental moral and political unit and, as such, deserves our loyalty and deepest respect. Only men know this and act accordingly. But justice is more than just a law to be respected, in exchange for others obeying them in the same way. Justice is the state of a well-regulated soul, and so the righteous man will necessarily also be the happy man. Justice is therefore more than mere reciprocal obedience to the law, as Glaucon suggests, but it nevertheless implies obedience to the state and the laws that maintain it.

Although Plato may have been the first philosopher to offer a representation of the argument at the heart of social contract theory, Socrates eventually rejected the idea that the social contract is the original source of justice. Just as Rousseau rejected traditional theories of the social contract and later proposed his own, contemporary philosophers such as Martha Nussbaum, Thomas Pogge, and Charles Beitz introduced another qualitatively different version of the international social contract, which they believe they overcome some of the problems of this contract, as Rousseau put it. Kant and Rawls. [19] Theories of the social contract differ from the object of the contract. In the traditional conventional theories of Hobbes and Locke, the treatise dealt with the conditions of political association. The problem included the reasons and limitations of the citizen`s obligation to obey the state. In its early formulation, the parts of Rawls discussed “common practices” (1958). In his later statement, Rawls regarded the purpose of the agreement as a principle of justice to regulate “the fundamental structure”: the theory of an implicit social contract states that by remaining in the territory controlled by a society that normally has a government, people give their consent to join that society and be governed by their government, If applicable. It is this approval that gives legitimacy to such a government. In the first platonic dialogue Crito, Socrates convincingly explains why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty instead of fleeing and going into exile in another Greek city. He personifies the laws of Athens and declares, speaking from their voice, that he has acquired an overwhelming obligation to obey the laws because they have allowed his entire way of life and even the fact of his existence. They allowed his mother and father to marry and thus have legitimate children, including themselves.

After his birth, the city of Athens required by its laws that his father take care of him and educate him. Socrates` life and how this life in Athens progressed depend on the laws. But what matters is that this relationship between citizens and the laws of the city is not forced. Once the citizens are adults and have seen how the city behaves, they can choose to leave, take their belongings or stay. Staying means complying with the law and accepting the sentences they have imposed. And after concluding a just agreement himself, Socrates asserts that he must respect this agreement he has concluded and obey the laws, in this case by maintaining and accepting the death penalty.