Social contract theory says that people live together in society on the basis a moral and/or political agreement. Hobbs and Rawls think that the morality of our lives is determined by social contracts. These social contracts are not created by God, but by society. The theory states that society without such contracts would be in a “prima materia”, or a state of nature. This is where there are no moral rules. Rachels, in The Elements of Moral Philosophy, states that morality is an ensemble of principles that mirror behavior and which can be accepted by rational individuals, provided that there is mutual agreement. Social contracts can be used to create harmony and balance within society. There are many differences in how these contracts are validated. One example of an implicit social agreement is to not be violent and to show respect for elders. Although another law is not explicitly stated, such laws (or raising one’s hands to ask permission for leaving the classroom) are addressed to rational students who choose to attend school and agree to be bound by the social and moral limits and restrictions outlined in school guidelines.

John Rawls claims that his theory of social contract can be included in the social contract tradition. He cites Mill, Hobbs, and Kant as examples. This is one the oldest philosophies. Social contract theory, however, is a form of modern moral or political theory. Many feminists and other race-conscious philosophers argue that social contract theory is only a partial picture of society’s political and moral lives. One example is a philosophy that hides self destructive contracts and places bounds on people based upon class. This essay will examine the moral imperatives that are used to define a tradition like the social contract. It will also evaluate Hobbes and Rawls claims. I will also examine the contract model in general to identify some of its controversial points and explain how it differs or relates from Kantian deontology and utilitarianism.

Thomas Hobbes first wrote his theory of Social Contract in The Leviathan published in 1651 during Britain’s Civil War. This was originally a legal theory that Thomas Hobbes wrote based on “Social Contract”. Hobbes is similar to Rawls in that he believes man lived before the Social Contract and was unaware of morality. In the chaos of the first nature, man lived in fear and selfishness. This was the world of the post-apocalyptic future. The fearful state of man was constant. Fear of losing your loved ones or being killed led to man living in constant fear. He was forced to build a solid life, often in harsh, temporary conditions. Without security, self protection and self preservation become survival instincts to avoid misery. Rational people gave up their rights and freedoms so that man could evolve into civil communities. This objective intermediary authority governs obedience. These contracts have made it possible to police the protection of property and lives.

This categorical imperative suffers from one weakness: absolute rulers. In this case, subjects were denied any rights and have to follow all rules, no matter what. Hobbes’ theory of monarchist rule states that these moral obligations are subject to natural law. The institution government will be thrown out of power if they abuse their position. Hobbes’s rules say that words are stronger than swords, even if they are sanctioned by other powers. He explained that civil law exists because it’s commanded and enforced in the sovereign rulers’ name. A hearsay version would mean it wouldn’t be able to maintain order. Hobbes believes that the principle of “Might Is Always Right” is one of his most important principles. Hobbes does not believe in absoluteism and admits that there could be downfalls due to the unrelenting executions or unfair interests.

Hobbes’ mechanistic theory suggests that human nature is a mechanical one. It states that you must be solely self-interested, similar to Rawls. This means that you will only follow your own best interests.

Altruistically and within the framework of the social agreement, one doesn’t sacrifice the best interest others to attain their highest self-interest. This will result in a self-destructive moral imperative. It is possible to break the social contract and cause a decline in confidence in other rational parties to the agreement. Hobbes implicitly states that rational persons can pursue their wants as efficiently as they can. This is as a condition of fulfilling their contract and being their best selves, in order to make society the best.

Hobbes’ argument is based on “prima materiala”. He imagines society before the creation of the accords and agreements. In these agreements, he asks subjects to surrender fully to sovereign rule to ensure peace, prosperity, and life for all. Hobbes makes use of natural law to assign hierarchy based on mutually assured destruction. This is because a ruler should aim to preserve peace, rights and welfare for his subjects. If they don’t, the balance will be broken and the perverse rulers that rule from a subject mind will prevail. This thoughttrain is a clear manifestation of Hobbes’s invocation to an established order, as well as the desire for cooperation or joining one another against a common foe. Hobbes’s social-contract theory includes aspects such as individualism, materialism and utilitarianism. This is to reduce moral imperatives and give them universal applicability.

Rawls holds that the principles of morality he has outlined are choices made by rational, self-interested, free and rational individuals. This is called the Original Position. This hypothetical agreement can be described as a construct that a majority of rational people prefer to use for principles of justice, fairness or justice under well-defined circumstances. These are cultural and empirical facts that are relevant to moral intuition. These contracts are made possible by the fact that certain circumstances can facilitate them. The veil or ignorance is the belief that people will follow their path regardless of their status or fortune.

Rawls says that a categorical imperative is found within Hobbes’ theory. This is because social contracts are based on the generation they belong to. This theory allows for possible ways to modify existing laws and remove obsolete ones. The theory also allows principles to be chosen that are free from prejudices or predisposed biases that may arise from social and individual circumstances.

Also, morality will change over time based on cultural validation, acceptance, or both. Information that shapes certain principles is not based on social variation of an individual’s partiality. It is simply a function of the limitations and functions that have been placed on the current era. Rawls’s use of justice is more specific. This refers to the fairness and equality of outcomes that result from a just ruler. Rawls is referring to justice as a fair and natural equilibrium that occurs when subjects welfare are allowed to influence the sanctions of the sovereign ruler. Rawls is very clear about the limitations on knowledge, but his context for qualifications for individuals is a bit specific and misleading. Rawls says that they can make their own decisions if they do not try to take authority over another. However, rationality is more about the effectiveness of actions than the ignorance. However, he does not say that rational people are egoists. Rather, they want to meet their needs and wants at the best possible cost. It is similar, in part, to utilitarianism. However, it has a quantitative analysis and is based on a central concern for the welfare of all people, not just an individual.

Duty derives its name from the Greek deon, which is related to Kant’s theory of deontology. Kant states that rational people have a moral obligation to conform to certain principles, regardless of what happens. This principle comes from the divine command theory. Rawls, Hobbes, and others use natural law in social contract theory to communicate people. They use natural law to elect a united government that will uphold and enforce moral obligations. Kant’s theory relies on divine command. This is less true today, given the separation of church and State in the United States Constitution. Contrary, Kantian gnosis supports the consistency in truths, not consistency of gratification. Contrary to this, the social contract theory’s main goal is to negate mutual liabilities through an agreement on truth, which is upheld in an organization. Rawls disagrees with Hobbes. Hobbes’s viewpoint offers a counterweight compromise that allows people to choose what they want and what is best for them. Hobbes narrows the definitions of freewill to mutual agreement, not individual’s wish for utility.