These two principles are linked by a certain order. The first principle, the distribution of civil liberties as far as possible in accordance with equality, precedes the second principle, which distributes social and economic goods. In other words, we cannot decide to give up some of our civil liberties in favour of greater economic advantage. Rather, we must meet the requirements of the first principle before moving on to the second. From Rawls` point of view, this series of principles expresses a fundamental rational preference for certain types of goods, that is, those embodied in civil liberties, over other types of goods, that is, economic benefits. In his edicts on rock, the Buddhist king Asoka is said to have spoken out in favor of a broad and far-reaching social contract. Buddhist vinaya also reflects the social contracts expected of monks; Such a case is when the inhabitants of a particular city complain that monks are slaughtering sakas, the Buddha tells his monks that they must stop and give way to social norms. Rousseau has two different theories of the social contract. The first is found in his essay Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, commonly known as the Second Discourse, and is an account of man`s moral and political evolution over time, from a state of nature to modern society. As such, it contains his naturalized representation of the social contract, which he considers highly problematic.

The second is his normative or idealized theory of the social contract and aims to provide the means by which the problems that modern society has created for us, as set forth in the social contract, can be mitigated. The basic idea seems simple: in a way, the agreement of all individuals subject to collectively applied social agreements shows that these agreements have normative property (they are legitimate, just, binding, etc.). But even this basic idea is anything but simple, and even this abstract reproduction is reprehensible in many ways. Charles Mills` 1997 book The Racial Contract is a critique not only of the history of Western thought, institutions, and political practices, but especially of the history of social contract theory. Inspired by Carole Pateman`s The Sexual Contract, it seeks to show that non-whites have a relationship similar to the social contract as women. As such, it also challenges the supposed universality of the liberal individual, who is the agent of contract theory. The social contract was seen as an “event” in which individuals came together and ceded some of their individual rights so that others ceded their own. [12] This led to the creation of the state, a sovereign entity like individuals now under their rule that would create laws regulating social interactions. Human life is therefore no longer “a war of all against all”. Carole Pateman`s 1988 book, The Sexual Contract, argues that beneath the myth of the idealized contract, as described by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, lies a more fundamental contract on male-female relationships. Contract theory presents itself as opposed to patriarchy and patriarchal law. (Locke`s social contract, for example, is established by him in stark contrast to the work of Robert Filmer, who advocated for patriarchal power.) But the “original pact” (2), which precedes the social contract between equals, is the agreement of men to dominate and control women.

This “original pact” is made by brothers, literally or metaphorically, who, after overthrowing the father`s reign, then agree to share their dominion over women who were previously under the exclusive control of a man, the Father. The shift from “classical patriarchy” (24) to modern patriarchy is therefore a change in the question of who has power over women. However, this is not a fundamental change in whether women are dominated by men. The balance of power between men is changing, but not the relationship of women to the power of men. Modern patriarchy is characterized by a contractual relationship between men, and part of this contract involves power over women. This fact that one form of patriarchy has not been completely overthrown, but replaced by another form in which male power has been distributed to more men rather than being held by one man, is illustrated by Freud`s story about the emergence of civilization. According to this story, a group of brothers ruled by a father who has exclusive sexual access to the women of the tribe kills the father and then contracts with each other to be equal and share the women. It is history, whether or not we understand Freud`s history as historically correct, of modern patriarchy and its deep dependence on contract as the means by which men control and dominate women. Feminist philosophers like Baier and Held, who theorize from the emerging tradition of nursing ethics, argue that social contract theory fails as an appropriate representation of our moral or political obligations. The theory of social contracts generally only goes so far as to delimit our rights and obligations. But this may not be enough to adequately reveal the full extent of what it means to be a legal person and how to fully respond to others with whom one interacts through addictive relationships. Baier argues that Gauthier, who understands the emotional bonds between people as insignificant and voluntary, therefore does not represent the fullness of psychology and human motivations.

She argues that this therefore leads to a crucial error in the theory of social contracts. Liberal moral theory is indeed parasitic on the relationships between the people from whom it seeks to free us. Although Gauthier argues that the more we can consider affective relationships as voluntary, the freer we are, we still need to be primarily in such relationships (e.B. of the mother-child relationship) to develop exactly the skills and qualities praised by liberal theory. In other words, certain types of dependency relationships are mainly necessary if we want to become exactly the kind of people who can enter into contracts and agreements. Similarly, Held argued that the “economic man” model does not capture much of what constitutes meaningful moral relationships between people. The understanding of human relations in purely contractual terms constitutes, according to their argument, “an impoverished vision of human aspiration” (194). It therefore suggests that we consider other models of human relationships when seeking to better understand morality. In particular, it offers the paradigm of the mother-child relationship to at least complement the model of selfish individual agents negotiating contracts with each other.

.