Social contract theory holds much significance in political
and philosophical world as it has been the reason we people are saved from war
and chaos. This theory bounds the individuals under certain laws of justice and
morality, it requires us to submit to its authority and surrender our rights
only to ensure the survival of a larger number of people, or the state as a
whole.
Modern criticisms to this theory, namely the feminist and
the race-conscious point of views are valid in their own sense but they fail to
incorporate that no matter how rational the mankind becomes, it will still be
in need of some sort of ruling body, some civil authority to prevent it from
adopting unfair means. Mankind will do whatever it takes to achieve its objective
but unless it is bounded by some rules, it will be willing to kill another human
being if that’s what it takes.
My point being that social contract is necessary for the
survival of our kind, it has been and it will be a part of our political
culture for a very long time to come. Because it is not possible to come up
with some alternative method so easily which can possibly replace this long prevalent
theory and also refutes the arguments given against it.
1 comment:
Social contract theory makes an assumption about human nature that it is intact selfish. That morals will only exist if a supreme force that is feared is protecting them.
The roots of this theory lies in Hobbes theory that man is selfish and a war of all against all shall exist, if there is no regulatory body.
I feel this is not true since many studies exist such as Peter Kroptokin's theory of co-operation , which show that co-operation is the way a society survives rather than being selfish.
Moreover, altruistic acts that take play everyday also show that man is not inherently selfish. Collectivist societies such as Japan also refute this aspect of human nature.
Post a Comment