I personally think there should be since the constitution focuses more attention on the structure of government rather than the goals of government and the rights and obligations of citizens. The Bill of Rights for the U. Constitution is an example of a relatively standalone document focused more on elements of the social contract.
Technically and legally it is considered part of the Constitution, but everybody knows it as if it were distinct from the Constitution. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights UDHR is another example of a relatively standalone document focused more on elements of the social contract than structure of government or specific laws and policies intended to implement the contract. Nonetheless, the reality is that to discern the social contract for any country one must sift through statutory law.
Examples of social contract elements embedded in statutory law in the U. The details, policies, and regulations need to be embodied in law, but it would be more helpful to have the social contract aspects called out separately, as in the Bill of Rights and UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights UDHR. Some elements of a social contract may be expressed in the party platform for political parties. That party will likely seek to instill its own desired social contract into statutory law. Not all political parties will have the same ideas for what the elements of the social contract should be.
This can result in a shifting social contract if and when political power shifts in the legislature. Individual organizations, whether businesses or nonprofit organizations, may have their own ideas of what the social contract should look like, either as explicit value , vision , and mission statements or embedded in their charters, bylaws, policies, and procedures. It is permissible for individual organizations to have their own social contract which applies to their members only, provided that it does not conflict with the whole-of-society social contract, the national social contract.
On the flip side, national social contracts must take care to respect individual rights, including right to associate, and not infringe on the rights of individuals and their associations and organizations to have somewhat different value from the rest of society.
How to balance these conflicting interests is very tricky. It is best for the overall national social contract to be as explicit as possible about this balance and the process for achieving it. Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of most modern western-style societies. The hallmark of a religion is the social contract which is expressed explicitly or implied by the values, dogma, doctrine, and scripture of the religion. The social contract within a religion may diverge significantly from the overall national social contract.
There will inevitably be conflicts. Which side wins will be an intricate dance and negotiation. There is no absolute a priori winner. Ultimately it may come down to arbitrary judgments by the courts. And such judgments may vary through time, sometimes leaning strongly one way and sometimes leaning more strongly the other way. This requires that the people be able to see, read, and comprehend the social contract.
The social contract needs to be fully transparent. Hiding elements of the social contract in dense statutory law or even a legally-framed constitution interferes with transparency and ease of understanding. An explicit, separate social contract document is well advised. Any social contract element embedded in a law should first be recorded in the social contract.
The rule of law is a primary function of a social contract. The rule of law is the degree to which decisions by authority and government should be guided or even constrained by law rather than left to the discretion or even capricious whim of individual officials or civil servants.
The rule of law means applying laws and regulations as literally written, without taking context or the situation or identity of the individuals involved into consideration. The rule of law is the notion that a country is a nation of laws, not of men , quoting Founding Father John Adams. The rule of law is the notion of Lady Justice being blindfolded. The rule of law is in contrast with discretion and compassion.
Discretion is the degree to which government and the justice system can apply case by case discretion when making decisions, to take context and the situation and identities of the individuals involved into consideration, in contrast to simply applying laws and regulations as literally written. A social contract may or may not explicitly express the degree of discretion that is expected, permissible, or to be tolerated, by law, the administration of justice, or the administration of government.
Compassion is the degree to which government and the justice system exercises discretion to be more lenient towards individuals who are suffering in some way, such as:. A social contract may or may not explicitly express the degree of compassion that is expected, permissible, or to be tolerated, by law, the administration of justice, or the administration of government.
Going beyond the basic freedoms and guarantees of the U. Before drafting a specific social contract for a specific country, the drafters should review and either adopt or revise the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights UDHR , which for example includes most of the rights granted in the U. Declaration of Independence and U. Constitution plus additional rights. The social contract should cover these areas:. This list is not intended to specify exactly what a social contract should guarantee or mandate, but to simply outline the areas which should be covered and specified in a specific social contract.
Some goods and services in a society are optional, vanities, extravagances, or even luxuries, but some core set of goods and services are considered essential goods and services. What exactly constitutes an essential good or service will vary from country to country, region to region, locale to locale. It is up to the collective will of the citizens of any area to define what they consider essential. And the definition will evolve over time. A computer or Internet connection was once quite an extravagance. A well-stocked wood pile and decent hunting rifle and supply of ammunition and a hunting knife were once considered absolute essentials.
Some goods and services may be available in a society without any need for government involvement. Such as goods available at your local supermarket or convenience store. Other goods and services might not otherwise be available at all absent significant government involvement, such as national security.
Other goods and services may be available but inconsistently, either in time or in geographic distribution. Or at the whim of the weather and Mother Nature. Other goods and services may be generally available, but without ready access by everyone. Other goods and services may be generally available, but only at a high cost that makes them unavailable to some non-trivial segment of society of more limited economic means.
Or more limited education. Or more limited physical or mental ability. The social contract seeks to assure availability, access, and low cost for all essential goods and services. Generally, resourceful citizens can take care of themselves. The issue is what aspects of life are unlikely to be readily handled by average citizens. Those are the details that must be wrapped up in a social contract. The whole of society, which includes but is not limited to the social contract is detailed in these other papers:. In order for the people to tolerate the rule of authority and the state, they expect something in return, namely:.
In exchange for getting services and other benefits out of the social contract, the people must put something into the deal, namely:. The institutions and organizations in society form roughly three sectors:. For more on civil society, see the companion paper, What is Civil Society? A people will need to decide what they want the respective roles of these three sectors to be, including:.
The social contract should be as explicit as possible in detailing these respective roles. Transparency is generally a good thing, but it can have its costs as well. Secrecy, privacy, and discretion can have valuable roles as well. Negotiation can conflict with transparency as well. Although some aspects of negotiation can be facilitated with transparency as well. The social contract should be as explicit as possible as to how much transparency is expected, from government, business, and civil society.
In both moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the. The Social Contract, originally published as On the Social Contract; or, Principles of Political Rights by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is a book in which.
And from the people as well. Privacy has its merits, but some degree of public records and free speech have merit as well. The social contract should be as explicit as possible in this area as well. The social contract should be clear, plain, and explicit as to the role that people see for the family unit in society. And this includes marriage, children, and the extended family as well. The social contract should be clear, plain, and explicit as to the role that people see for the local community in society. And this includes neighborhoods as well.
Some societies may place higher value on rugged individualism while other societies may place higher value on collective action. The social contract should clearly and explicitly state the bias, if any, and respective roles of the two. It should be clear to all citizens how individualism and collectivism are to be balanced, if at all. Most societies will have both, but will have varying degrees of emphasis on the value of individualism.
The point here is not to argue for a particular balance, but to encourage the drafters of a social contract to do so, and to do so explicitly. A people will need to decide what form of justice system they wish to have, primarily to choose between:. They also need to decide how they wish to deal with:.
These issues need to be covered by the social contract. People need to know what they are getting themselves into. Their expectations need to be set, as explicitly as possible. One area where many countries struggle is finding the line between peaceful assembly and illegal unrest. Exactly how disruptive, aggressive, angry, forceful, damaging, harmful, and even violent can a protest get before it is no longer considered peaceful assembly and freedom of speech and expression? Most constitutions and even the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights do not protect protest per se, but protect peaceful assembly instead.
The two are treated as synonyms. Ripe for misunderstanding and ripe for abuse on all sides. No sane person would read peaceful as including:. But where exactly is the line between peaceful protest and those more extreme forms of conduct? There are also the matters of requiring permits and lawful limits on time, place, and manner of expression and assembly. The social contract should address all of these issues as plainly and explicitly as possible so that there is no confusion for citizens, officials, law enforcement, prosecutors, lawyers, judges, and juries.
Minor violations of law made as a matter of principle and to make a point are commonly tolerated as an acceptable form of civil disobedience , at least in the U. In fact, civil disobedience is a time-honored tradition in the U. That said, this is a strictly informal portion of the social contract, at least in the U. How minor or major can a violation of law be before it is no longer considered acceptable and excusable civil disobedience? Very unclear and subject to a widely varying degree of discretion on the part of all parties.
The social contract should more explicitly and plainly lay out the ground rules for acceptable civil disobedience. And even if a society does not wish to permit and excuse civil disobedience, then that should be spelled out plainly, clearly, and explicitly in the social contract. Outright incitement is typically going to be illegal in any venue, but the border line between vigorous, passionate, and even somewhat offensive expression and clear incitement is not so clear at all.
In fact, commonly it will be left to the discretion of the prosecutor, judge, and jury to decide. Confusion, misunderstanding, anger, and disappointment prevail. Rather, a robust social contract will make more plainly and explicitly clear where the line is. It may not be an absolute bright line and still require some degree of discretion, but at least some degree of clarity is needed. The line may vary from culture to culture. Some countries may encourage very vigorous interaction, while others may mandate a greater degree of civility. The social contract is tied up with questions of what forms of expression, conduct, and behavior are acceptable.
Yes, there are lots of freedoms, but there will also be lots of laws and various restrictions on freedoms. Questions to be answered when drafting a social contract include:. A social contract should address what level of pride in the country is appropriate. When does pride, patriotism, and nationalism become a distinct negative? When does nationalism cross the line to a form of ethnic or national supremacy or nativism which unfairly excludes minorities and others of some other ethnic or national origin?
The social contract should explicitly address these issues. Not every country must be equally free, open, and welcoming, but the people of a country should be clear where they stand on the matter of immigration and refugees. Some countries may be at a stage where immigration is heartily welcomed, while other countries may be at a stage where they do not have the economic, social, or political resources to sustain an unchecked bulge of immigrants.
Again, the social contract should explicitly state where the country stands on such matters. A social contract can deal with income is a variety of ways:. Existing social contracts were developed long before the relatively recent interest in income inequality and wealth inequality. New social contracts or revisions to existing social contracts should explicitly address income inequality and wealth inequality, either to explicitly deny their relevance, or to explicitly state how they will be measured, avoided, or forms of redistribution.
Entitlements can take two forms under a social contract:. The concept of a social safety net is inherently part of the social contract. Each society country, state, locale will have to decide for itself what aspects of life will be covered in the social contract as part of the social safety net. Generally, the social contract is a national commitment , but there may be a secondary social contract by which an individual state may have a broader commitment of government obligations or obligations of citizens than other states in the same country.
This may result in higher taxes or fees. Or lower taxes and fees if the citizens of a state require less services or other benefits, or if the state government is run more efficiently and more leanly. An example would be mandated health insurance. Or free or more heavily subsidized college tuition.
Or a more rural state with less demand for expensive urban services. Similarly, a city, urban area, or rural area may also have yet another level of social contract that further extends or limits the commitment of government to the people and people to the government. Or lower taxes and fees. An example would be a city which legislates a higher minimum wage than the national or state minimum wage. Or a rural area with more self-sufficient residents. As already noted, parts of a social contract are formal and parts informal. The formal aspects appear in legally-binding documents such as:.
Informal aspects of a social contract include:. A legalistic recitation of elements of the social contract will bore most people to sleep. Those stories and narratives may involve notable historical figures, activists, explorers, entrepreneurs, and professionals.
Or they may employ fictional everyman characters whom average citizens can more easily relate to. Stories need to be updated as times change and people change. Every generation will need its own Horatio Alger stories. Although there have been many successful young people in recent decades, such as the proverbial Internet billionaires in the U.
One way to oversimplify the social contract is to say that it does precisely two things:. A social contract makes a bunch of promises to the people. A social contract sets expectations for the people. What they can expect to get. What they can expect to put into the deal obligations to get the expected benefits. The main point here is that the social contract needs to be as explicitly clear as possible as to what the promises and expectations are.
And whether promises and expectations are firm commitments or may vary or are optional or may only apply in some situations or at some times or to some degree.
Artificial intelligence AI and robots will increasingly exhibit social characteristics in the form of interactions between systems and between robots. Social contracts are needed there as well. The interactions between humans and machines require notions of social contract as well. This paper will not explore those two areas in any depth, other than simply to note the relevance. And to note that much of this paper is neutral with respect to whether the intelligent entities interacting, in relationships, or being governed are human or machines. Should a popular vote of the people be required to initially create a social contract or to change it?
Or should the social contract be a matter for a legislature or a body of elites or individuals with money or power or prestige? Should an absolute consensus of states or regional political entities be required? If they both remain silent, then there will be no such rewards, and they can each expect to receive moderate sentences of two years. And if they both cooperate with police by informing on each other, then the police will have enough to send each to prison for five years. The dilemma then is this: And if she does not confess, then I should confess, thereby being sentenced to one year instead of two.
So, no matter what she does, I should confess. However, had they each remained silent, thereby cooperating with each other rather than with the police, they would have spent only two years in prison. We should, therefore, insofar as we are rational, develop within ourselves the dispositions to constrain ourselves when interacting with others. Both SMs and CMs are exclusively self-interested and rational, but they differ with regard to whether they take into account only strategies, or both the strategies and utilities, of whose with whom they interact. To take into account the others' strategies is to act in accordance with how you expect the others will act.
It should be clear how much individualism will be preserved and protected, and how much collectivism will be required or expected to be achieved. Social contract in political party platforms Some elements of a social contract may be expressed in the party platform for political parties. The essential reasons that any people seek a social contract are: Can lead to inequality of opportunity. In this sense, the law is a civilizing force, and therefore Rousseau believed that the laws that govern a people helped to mold their character. In Plato's most well-known dialogue, Republic , social contract theory is represented again, although this time less favorably. Nonetheless, the reality is that to discern the social contract for any country one must sift through statutory law.
To take into account their utilities is to consider how they will fare as a result of your action and to allow that to affect your own actions. Both SMs and CMs take into account the strategies of the other with whom they interact. But whereas SMs do not take into account the utilities of those with whom they interact, CMs do.
And, whereas CMs are afforded the benefits of cooperation with others, SMs are denied such advantage. According to Gauthier, rationality is a force strong enough to give persons internal reasons to cooperate. The enforcement mechanism has been internalized. Given the longstanding and widespread influence that social contract theory has had, it comes as no surprise that it is also the objects of many critiques from a variety of philosophical perspectives. Feminists and race-conscious philosophers, in particular, have made important arguments concerning the substance and viability of social contract theory.
For the most part, feminism resists any simple or universal definition. Given the pervasive influence of contract theory on social, political, and moral philosophy, then, it is not surprising that feminists should have a great deal to say about whether contract theory is adequate or appropriate from the point of view of taking women seriously. To survey all of the feminist responses to social contract theory would carry us well beyond the boundaries of the present article. I will concentrate therefore on just three of those arguments: Contract theory represents itself as being opposed to patriarchy and patriarchal right.
Yet the "original pact" 2 that precedes the social contract entered into by equals is the agreement by men to dominate and control women. It is not, however, a fundamental change in whether women are dominated by men. Modern patriarchy is characterized by a contractual relationship between men, and part of that contract involves power over women.
According to that story, a band of brothers, lorded over by a father who maintained exclusive sexual access to the women of the tribe, kill the father, and then establish a contract among themselves to be equal and to share the women.
Patriarchal control of women is found in at least three paradigmatic contemporary contracts: According to the terms of the marriage contract, in most states in the U. All these examples demonstrate that contract is the means by which women are dominated and controlled. Contract is not the path to freedom and equality. Rather, it is one means, perhaps the most fundamental means, by which patriarchy is upheld. Following Pateman's argument, a number of feminists have also called into question the very nature of the person at the heart of contract theory.
The liberal individual is purported to be universal: Many philosophers have argued, however, that when we look more closely at the characteristics of the liberal individual, what we find is not a representation of universal humanity, but a historically located, specific type of person. Macpherson, for example, has argued that Hobbesian man is, in particular, a bourgeois man, with the characteristics we would expect of a person during the nascent capitalism that characterized early modern Europe. Feminists have also argued that the liberal individual is a particular, historical, and embodied person.
As have race-conscious philosophers, such as Charles Mills, to be discussed below. More specifically, they have argued that the person at the heart of liberal theory, and the social contract, is gendered. Christine Di Stefano, in her book Configurations of Masculinity , shows that a number of historically important modern philosophers can be understood to develop their theories from within the perspective of masculinity, as conceived of in the modern period.
In particular, it fails to adequately represent children and those who provide them with the care they require, who have historically been women.
Theorizing from within the emerging tradition of care ethics, feminist philosophers such as Baier and Held argue that social contract theory fails as an adequate account of our moral or political obligations. Social contract theory, in general, only goes so far as to delineate our rights and obligations. But this may not be enough to adequately reveal the full extent of what it means to be a moral person, and how fully to respond to others with whom one interacts through relations of dependence.
Baier argues that Gauthier, who conceives of affective bonds between persons as non-essential and voluntary, therefore fails to represent the fullness of human psychology and motivations. She argues that this therefore leads to a crucial flaw in social contract theory. Liberal moral theory is in fact parasitic upon the very relations between persons from which it seeks to liberate us. While Gauthier argues that we are freer the more that we can see affective relations as voluntary, we must nonetheless, in the first place, be in such relationships e.
Certain kinds of relationships of dependence, in other words, are necessary in the first place if we are to become the very kinds of persons who are capable of entering into contracts and agreements. In a similar vein, Held has argued that the model of "economic man" fails to capture much of what constitutes meaningful moral relations between people. She therefore suggests that we consider other models of human relationships when looking for insight into morality.
In particular, she offers up the paradigm of the mother-child relationship to at least supplement the model of individual self-interested agents negotiating with one another through contracts. Such a model is more likely to match up with many of the moral experiences of most people, especially women. Feminist critiques of the contractarian approaches to our collective moral and political lives continue to reverberate through social and political philosophy. One such critique, that of Carole Pateman, has influenced philosophers writing outside of feminist traditions.
Charles Mills' book, The Racial Contract , is a critique not only of the history of Western political thought, institutions, and practices, but, more specifically, of the history of social contract theory.
As such, it also calls into question the supposed universality of the liberal individual who is the agent of contract theory. Some persons, in particular white men, are full persons according to the racial contract. As such they are accorded the right to enter into the social contract, and into particular legal contracts. They are seen as fully human and therefore as deserving of equality and freedom.
Their status as full persons accords them greater social power. In particular, it accords them the power to make contracts, to be the subjects of the contract, whereas other persons are denied such privilege and are relegated to the status of objects of contracts.
This racial contract is to some extent a meta-contract, which determines the bounds of personhood and parameters of inclusion and exclusion in all the other contracts that come after it. It manifests itself both formally and informally. So, race is not just a social construct, as others have argued, it is more especially a political construct, created to serve a particular political end, and the political purposes of a specific group. The contract allows some persons to treat other persons, as well as the lands they inhabit, as resources to be exploited.
This contract is not hypothetical, as Hobbes describes the one argued for in his Leviathan. This is an actual contract, or series of contracts, made by real men of history. The racial contract makes possible and justifies some people, in virtue of their alleged superiority, exploiting the peoples, lands, and resources of other races. From Mills' perspective then, racism is not just an unhappy accident of Western democratic and political ideals.
It is not the case that we have a political system that was perfectly conceived and unfortunately imperfectly applied. One of the reasons that we continue to think that the problem of race in the West is relatively superficial, that it does not go all the way down, is the hold that the idealized social contract has on our imagination. We continue to believe, according to Mills, in the myths that social contract theory tells us - that everyone is equal, that all will be treated the same before the law, that the Founding Fathers were committed to equality and freedom for all persons, etc.
One of the very purposes of social contract theory, then, is to keep hidden from view the true political reality — some persons will be accorded the rights and freedoms of full persons, and the rest will be treated as sub-persons. The racial contract informs the very structure of our political systems, and lays the basis for the continuing racial oppression of non-whites. We cannot respond to it, therefore, by simply adding more non-whites into the mix of our political institutions, representation, and so on. Rather, we must reexamine our politics in general, from the point of view of the racial contract, and start from where we are, with full knowledge of how our society has been informed by the systematic exclusion of some persons from the realm of politics and contract.
This "naturalized" feature of the racial contract, meaning that it tells a story about who we actually are and what is included in our history, is better, according to Mills, because it holds the promise of making it possible for us to someday actually live up to the norms and values that are at the heart of the Western political traditions. Virginia Held has argued that "Contemporary Western society is in the grip of contractual thinking" Contractual models have come to inform a vast variety of relations and interaction between persons, from students and their teachers, to authors and their readers.
Given this, it would be difficult to overestimate the effect that social contract theory has had, both within philosophy, and on the wider culture. Social contract theory is undoubtedly with us for the foreseeable future. But so too are the critiques of such theory, which will continue to compel us to think and rethink the nature of both ourselves and our relations with one another. Socrates' Argument In the early Platonic dialogue, Crito , Socrates makes a compelling argument as to why he must stay in prison and accept the death penalty, rather than escape and go into exile in another Greek city.
Modern Social Contract Theory a. Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes , , lived during the most crucial period of early modern England's history: John Locke For Hobbes, the necessity of an absolute authority, in the form of a Sovereign, followed from the utter brutality of the State of Nature. Jean-Jacques Rousseau Jean-Jacques Rousseau , , lived and wrote during what was arguably the headiest period in the intellectual history of modern France--the Enlightenment.
More Recent Social Contract Theories a. John Rawls' A Theory of Justice In , the publication of John Rawls ' extremely influential A Theory of Justice brought moral and political philosophy back from what had been a long hiatus of philosophical consideration. Contemporary Critiques of Social Contract Theory Given the longstanding and widespread influence that social contract theory has had, it comes as no surprise that it is also the objects of many critiques from a variety of philosophical perspectives.
Feminist Arguments For the most part, feminism resists any simple or universal definition. The Nature of the Liberal Individual Following Pateman's argument, a number of feminists have also called into question the very nature of the person at the heart of contract theory. Arguing from Care Theorizing from within the emerging tradition of care ethics, feminist philosophers such as Baier and Held argue that social contract theory fails as an adequate account of our moral or political obligations.
Race-Conscious Argument Charles Mills' book, The Racial Contract , is a critique not only of the history of Western political thought, institutions, and practices, but, more specifically, of the history of social contract theory. Conclusion Virginia Held has argued that "Contemporary Western society is in the grip of contractual thinking" References and Further Reading Baier, Annette. Review of David Gauthier, Morals by Agreement. Cambridge University Press Contract, Ethics, and Reason.
In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. A Mind of One's Own: Essays on Reason and Objectivity. Transforming Culture, Society, and Politics. The University of Chicago Press. Penguin Books Kavka, Gregory S. Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory. Yale University Press Anarchy, State and Utopia. Justice, Gender, and the Family.
Grube Hackett Publishing Company Grube, Revised by C. A Theory of Justice. The second division is that of the government , being distinct from the sovereign. This division is necessary because the sovereign cannot deal with particular matters like applications of the law. Doing so would undermine its generality, and therefore damage its legitimacy. Thus, government must remain a separate institution from the sovereign body. When the government exceeds the boundaries set in place by the people, it is the mission of the people to abolish such government, and begin anew.
Rousseau claims that the size of the territory to be governed often decides the nature of the government. Since a government is only as strong as the people, and this strength is absolute, the larger the territory, the more strength the government must be able to exert over the populace. In his view, a monarchical government is able to wield the most power over the people since it has to devote less power to itself, while a democracy the least. In general, the larger the bureaucracy , the more power required for government discipline. Normally, this relationship requires the state to be an aristocracy or monarchy.
When Rousseau uses the word democracy, he refers to a direct democracy rather than a representative democracy. In light of the relation between population size and governmental structure, Rousseau argues that, like his native Geneva , small city-states are the form of nation in which freedom can best flourish. For states of this size, an elected aristocracy is preferable, and in very large states a benevolent monarch; but even monarchical rule, to be legitimate, must be subordinate to the sovereign rule of law. The French philosopher Voltaire used his publications to criticise and mock Rousseau, but also to defend free expression.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article is about Jean-Jacques Rousseau's treatise. For "social contract" as a political and philosophical concept, see Social contract. For other uses, see Social Contract disambiguation. This section does not cite any sources.