The social contract theory is the view that persons’ moral
and political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them
to form the society in which they live. It’s an unspoken contract; nothing
holds it binding. Some may argue that it is an implicit contract, but, does the
common man know that such a contract exists? Does he know his moral obligations
towards a society?
A major flaw with the social contract theory is that it only
highlights ones major obligations towards self-interested beings. So does this
theory exclude one from acting morally towards animals or incompetent human
beings?
The social contract theory also fails to view humans as
beings who are capable of loving and caring and doesn’t represent the richness
of human psychology.
Charles Mills has also challenged the view that the liberal
individual is an agent of the contract theory. He argues that the racial
contract is more fundamental to the social contract theory. He argues that non
whites are denied the right to make or change laws; they are objects of contracts.
The social contract theory’s purpose is to hide the political agendas; using
this contract to reduce power of non-whites. Mills says that asking for representation
for non-whites only increases the number of oppressed individuals.
Since the creation of Pakistan, east Pakistanis have been
subject to discrimination in all aspects. From being recruited to the army, to
political representation; they had been neglected and called ‘too short’ to be
a part of the army. Similarly, despite having won a majority in the 1970
elections they were boycotted by and, deprived of power by west Pakistani politicians.
This is the perfect example of how the political system has been manoeuvred to
keep the few individuals in power throughout the course of history.
3 comments:
I agree. I think the social contract theory doesn't really hold any significance in today's world. I consider it to merely be a notion of how things ought to be in society. They are however, clearly far from being that way. Moreover people like Hobbes and Gauthier had seemingly odd approaches towards it.
But don't a form of social contracts exist in the constitutions? Isn't the social contract essential to ensuring rights are protected for all members in society?
It may be essential; but does the social contract really provide protection for all members of a society? What about women and minorities? The social contract theory is structured in a way where minorities are often left unprotected, as argued by Charles Mills. similarly, there has been very little change in representation of women, especially in pakistani society where patriarchy prevails.
Post a Comment