Does The Social Contract Theory: You Forgot Something?

The Social Contract Theory: You Forgot Something
The social contract was an idea first introduced by Socrates, who used it as a third and final argument for reasoning with the Athenian government. Socrates believed that society rests on an agreement in which each of us gains enormous benefits, and in return we agree to support the institutions and practices that make those benefits possible. This “social contract” would later be the basis of morality after being further developed by Thomas Hobbes who is arguably the first great modern era intellect to offer a worldly nucleus for ethics. Until Hobbes, the foundation of morals or ethics was dictated by religion. However, Hobbes’ theory became very attractive for it saw morality as “the rules
“ In essence, the social contract theory suggested that living morally is determined by whether or not an individual is doing everything they can to make a social living feasible. While this notion has remained influential since, the moral community has raised concerns. In general, many critics disagree with the argument because it fails to include non-rational agents within the scope of the moral community. These dependents, such as small children and animals, are undoubtedly part of society yet the theory does nothing to protect them because they do not have the same power as a rational man or woman. As a result, scholars have debated the moral responsibilities of mankind and will continue to do so, for the concept is sensitive by nature. Thus, the best solution that the social contract theorist would suggest is to carry out your end of the deal and all of
Yet, I think it is important to note that Hobbes had the success of the nation and its overall well being in mind. The theory was essentially a self-check on citizens, who were expected to act in a way that made social living possible. In the event that everyone held up their end of the deal, society would be able to enjoy the benefits of social living: education, medicine, and much more. This scenario does not come without its costs though, because the ‘social-contract’ is not binding whatsoever. One critic said, the social contract “isn’t worth the paper it’s not written on.” These beliefs are held by many whom actively reap the benefits of society, otherwise known as the problem of the ‘free rider.’ This issue poses a problem for the social contract theorist because not only are they actively working to stabilize social living, they are also providing for those who do not work. Like stated previously, this problem may stem from people not treating others equally. It is expected that you behave the law if you part take in the benefits; however, there is not a law in place that prohibits hurting other people’s feelings. Therefore, while critics may be upset at the failure to recognize non-rational agents presence, the social contract theorist can only advise those with concerns to keep their pledge to their state,