As Social Agreement

David Gauthier « neo-hobbesian » The theory holds that collaboration between two independent and selfish parties is indeed possible, especially when it comes to understanding morality and politics. [19] Gauthier stresses in particular the benefits of cooperation between two parties with regard to the challenge of the prisoner dilemma. It proposes that if two parties comply with the original agreement and the morals set out in the treaty, they should both achieve an optimal result. [19] [20] In its social contract model, factors such as trust, rationality and self-interest act honestly and prevent it from breaking the rules. [19] [20] According to Locke, the state of nature is not a condition of the individual, as is the case with Hobbes. On the contrary, it is populated by mothers and fathers with their children or families – what he calls the « marital society » (para. 78). These societies are based on voluntary agreements to care for children together, and they are moral, but not political. Political society is born when men who represent their families gather in the state of nature and who each abandon the executive to punish those who go beyond natural law and leave that power to the public power to a government. After doing so, they are subject to the will of the majority.

In other words, by making a pact to get out of the state of nature and shape society, they make « a politically under-government body » (para. 97) and submit to the will of that body. One joins such a body, either from its beginnings or after being founded by others, only with explicit consent. After creating a political society and a government by their approval, people receive three things they lacked in the state of nature: laws, judges to decide laws and the executive power to enforce those laws. Each human being therefore gives the power to protect himself and punish violators of the natural law of the government he created by the pact. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) favoured a conception of company contracts that did not fit into the fact that one person handed over sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract did not exist between individuals and the state, but between individuals who did not impose or govern each other, each retaining full sovereignty over himself: in his rockeries, the Buddhist king Asoka would have advocated for a broad and extensive social contract. The Buddhist Vinaya also reflects the social contracts expected by the monks; Such a case is when the people of a particular city complain of monks cutting down saka trees, the Buddha tells his monks that they must stop and give way to social norms. The central assertion that the theory of the social contract is getting closer is that the law and the political order are not natural, but human creations.