{{Short description|Concept in political philosophy}}
{{Redirect|Social Agreement|the Greek political party|Social Agreement (Greece)|Rousseau's 1762 treatise on the concept|The Social Contract|other uses|Social Contract (disambiguation)}}
[[File: Leviathan frontispiece cropped British Library.jpg|thumb|200px|The original cover of [[Thomas Hobbes]]'s work ''[[Leviathan (Hobbes book)|Leviathan]]'' (1651), in which he discusses the concept of the social contract theory]]
{{republicanism sidebar}}
In [[Moral philosophy|moral]] and [[political philosophy]], the '''social contract''' is an idea, theory, or model that usually, although not always, concerns the [[Legitimacy (political)|legitimacy]] of the authority of the [[State (polity)|state]] over the [[individual]].["For the name social contract (or original contract) often covers two different kinds of contract, and, in tracing the evolution of the theory, it is well to distinguish The first] generally involved some theory of the origin of the state. The second form of social contract may be more accurately called the contract of government or the contract of submission... Generally, it has nothing to do with the origins of society, but, presupposing a society already formed, it purports to define the terms on which that society is to be governed: the people have made a contract with their ruler which determines their relations with him. They promise him obedience, while he promises his protection and good government. While he keeps his part of the bargain, they must keep theirs, but if he misgoverns the contract is broken and allegiance is at an end." [[J. W. Gough]], ''The Social Contract'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936), pp.{{nbsp}}2–3.] Conceptualized in the [[Age of Enlightenment]], it is a core concept of [[constitutionalism]], while not necessarily convened and written down in a [[constituent assembly]] and [[constitution]].
Social contract arguments typically are that individuals have [[consent of the governed|consented]], either explicitly or [[tacit consent|tacitly]], to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining [[rights]] or maintenance of the [[social order]].[{{cite web |language=en |title=Social Contract Theory |author=Celeste Friend |url=https://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont |website=[[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] |access-date=26 December 2019 |archive-date=18 November 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191118145645/https://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/ |url-status=live }}][{{cite journal|url=https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/18609/Castiglione_Introduction.pdf?sequence=1|doi=10.1111/1478-9302.12080|title=Introduction the Logic of Social Cooperation for Mutual Advantage – the Democratic Contract|year=2015|last1=Castiglione|first1=Dario|journal=Political Studies Review|volume=13|issue=2|pages=161–175|hdl=10871/18609|s2cid=145163352|access-date=2019-02-03|archive-date=2017-09-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170922062821/https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/18609/Castiglione_Introduction.pdf?sequence=1|url-status=live}}] The relation between [[natural and legal rights]] is often a topic of social contract theory. The term takes its name from ''[[The Social Contract]]'' (French: ''Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique''), a 1762 book by [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] that discussed this concept. Although the antecedents of social contract theory are found in antiquity, in [[Ancient Greek philosophy|Greek]] and [[Stoicism|Stoic]] philosophy and [[Roman law|Roman]] and [[Canon Law]], the heyday of the social contract was the mid-17th to early 19th centuries, when it emerged as the leading doctrine of [[political legitimacy]].
The starting point for most social contract theories is an examination of the [[human condition]] absent any political order (termed the "[[state of nature]]" by [[Thomas Hobbes]]).[Ross Harrison writes that "Hobbes seems to have invented this useful term." See Ross Harrison, ''Locke, Hobbs, and Confusion's Masterpiece'' (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p.{{nbsp}}70. The phrase "state of nature" does occur, in [[State of nature#History|Thomas Aquinas]]'s [http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer19.htm ''Quaestiones disputatae de Veritate'', Question 19, Article 1, Answer 13] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171019181354/http://dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer19.htm |date=2017-10-19 }}. However, Aquinas uses it in the context of a discussion of the nature of the soul after death, not in reference to politics.] In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal [[power (philosophy)|power]] and [[conscience]], assuming that 'nature' precludes mutually beneficial [[social relationships]]. From this shared premise, social contract theorists aim to demonstrate why rational individuals would voluntarily relinquish their natural freedom in exchange for the benefits of political order.
Prominent 17th- and 18th-century theorists of the social contract and natural rights included [[Hugo de Groot]] (1625), [[Thomas Hobbes]] (1651), [[Samuel von Pufendorf]] (1673), [[John Locke]] (1689), [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] (1762) and [[Immanuel Kant]] (1797), each approaching the concept of political authority differently. Grotius posited that individual humans had [[Natural and legal rights|natural rights]]. Hobbes famously said that in a "state of nature", human life would be "solitary, poor, [[nasty, brutish and short]]". In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to plunder, rape and murder. There would be an endless "war of all against all" (''[[bellum omnium contra omnes]]''). To avoid this, free men contract with each other to establish political [[community]] ([[civil society]]) through a social contract in which they all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to an absolute sovereign, one man or an assembly of men. Though the sovereign's edicts may well be arbitrary and tyrannical, Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the terrifying anarchy of a state of nature. Hobbes asserted that humans consent to abdicate their rights in favor of the absolute authority of government (whether [[Monarchy|monarchical]] or [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary]]).
Alternatively, Locke and Rousseau argued that individuals acquire civil rights by accepting the obligation to respect and protect the rights of others, thereby relinquishing certain [[Personal Freedom|personal freedoms]] in the process.
The central assertion that social contract theory approaches is that law and political order are not natural, but human creations. The social contract and the political order it creates are simply the means toward an end—the benefit of the individuals involved—and legitimate only to the extent that they fulfill their part of the agreement. Hobbes argued that government is not a party to the original contract; hence citizens are not obligated to submit to the government when it is too weak to act effectively to suppress factionalism and civil unrest.
== Model of the social contract ==
A general [[model]] for different social contract theories exists. Given that hypothetically:'''''I''''' chooses '''''R''''' in '''''M''''' and this gives '''''I*''''' reason to endorse and comply with '''''R''''' in the real world insofar as the reasons '''''I''''' has for choosing '''''R''''' in '''''M''''' are (or can be) shared by '''''I*'''''.[{{Citation|last1=D'Agostino|first1=Fred|title=Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract|date=2019|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/contractarianism-contemporary/|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|editor-last=Zalta|editor-first=Edward N.|edition=Fall 2019|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|access-date=2020-09-08|last2=Gaus|first2=Gerald|last3=Thrasher|first3=John|archive-date=2021-02-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210205032334/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/contractarianism-contemporary/|url-status=live}}]
Being a model, the above is an abstraction of different theories which assists in identifying the relevant factors in the various theories.[{{Cite web|url=https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/enlightenment--33?print=1|title=Enlightenment|website=www.timetoast.com|date=29 August 1632 |access-date=2016-11-10|archive-date=2016-11-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161110235657/https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/enlightenment--33?print=1|url-status=live}}] The [[Arthashastra]] thus presents a deeply realist conception of political power. Governance, for [[Chanakya]], is not born of [[idealism]] or [[Right|divine right]], but of historical necessity: a response to the inherent vulnerabilities of [[human nature]]. In this sense, his political vision anticipates core concerns of [[political theory]], including the justification of state authority, the moral limits of power, and the role of legal institutions in curbing the excesses of human will.
One of the most compelling passages in the [[Arthashastra]] (1.4.13–14) captures the essence of this [[philosophy]]:
“When the law of punishment is not properly enforced, it gives rise to the law of the fish; for in the absence of a magistrate, the strong devour the weak.”
The [[Indian Buddhist]] text of the second century BC ''[[Mahāvastu]]'' recounts the [[Mahāsammata|legend of Mahasammata]]. The story goes as follows:
{{blockquote|In the early days of the cosmic cycle mankind lived on an immaterial plane, dancing on air in a sort of fairyland, where there was no need of food or clothing, and no private property, family, government or laws. Then gradually the process of cosmic decay began its work, and mankind became earthbound, and felt the need of food and shelter. As men lost their primeval glory, distinctions of class arose, and they entered into agreements with one another, accepting the institution of private property and the family. With this theft, murder, adultery, and other crime began, and so the people met together and decided to appoint one man from among them to maintain order in return for a share of the produce of their fields and herds. He was called "the Great Chosen One" (Mahasammata), and he received the title of raja because he pleased the people.[AL Basham, ''The Wonder That Was India'', p. 83]}}
In his [[Rock Edicts]], the Indian Buddhist king [[Asoka]] was said to have argued for a broad and far-reaching social contract.{{Citation needed|date=June 2018}} The Buddhist ''[[Vinaya]]'' also reflects social contracts expected of the monks; one such instance is when the people of a certain town complained about monks felling saka trees, the Buddha tells his monks that they must stop and give way to [[Social norm|social norms]].{{Citation needed|date=April 2023}}
In the [[Buddhist]] ''[[Aggañña Sutta]]'', an earlier more [[Egalitarianism|egalitarian]] state of harmonious and non-sedentary existence is envisioned as being first naturally followed by more settled forms of [[Agriculture|agricultural]] life. In the next stage, this societal progression leads to previously unheard-of customs – such as marriage and the recognition of private property. These new communal practices, in turn, give rise to robbery (‘''ādāna''’) and lying (‘''musāvāda''’) – and consequently, the need for censure (‘''garahā''’) and punishment (‘''daṇḍa''’) also emerges. It is only at this point, then, that the primordial social contract between the sovereign ruler and the people transpires:
{{blockquote|Now those beings, Vāseṭṭha, gathered themselves together, and bewailed these things, saying: From our evil deeds, sirs, becoming manifest, inasmuch as stealing, censure, lying, punishment have become known, what if we were to select a certain being, who should be wrathful when indignation is right, who should censure that which should rightly be censured and should banish him who deserves to be banished? But we will give him in return a proportion of the rice. Then, Vāseṭṭha, those beings went to the being among them who was the handsomest, the best favoured, the most attractive, the most capable and said to him: Come now, good being, be indignant at that whereat one should rightly be indignant, censure that which should rightly be censured, banish him who deserves to be banished. And we will contribute to thee a proportion of our rice. And he consented, and did so, and they gave him a proportion of their rice. Chosen by the whole people, Vāseṭṭha, is what is meant by Mahā Sammata; so Mahā Sammata (the Great Elect) was the first standing phrase to arise [for such an one]. Lord of the Fields is what is meant by Khattiya; so Khattiya (Noble) was the next expression to arise. He charms the others by the Norm – by what ought (to charm) – is what is meant by Raja; so this was the third standing phrase to arise.}}
In [[Western philosophy]], the concept of the social contract was originally posed by [[Glaucon]], as described by [[Plato]] in ''[[The Republic (Plato)|The Republic]]'', Book{{nbsp}}II.
{{blockquote|They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer injustice, evil; but that the evil is greater than the good. And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice;—it is a mean or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honoured by reason of the inability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist; he would be mad if he did. Such is the received account, Socrates, of the nature and origin of justice.[The Republic, Book II. Quoted from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.3.ii.html {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111016011312/http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.3.ii.html |date=2011-10-16 }}]}}
The social contract theory also appears in ''[[Crito]]'', another dialogue from Plato.
[[Epicurus]] in the fourth century BC seemed to have had a strong sense of social contract, with justice and law being rooted in mutual agreement and advantage, as evidenced by these lines, among others, from his ''Principal Doctrines'' (see also [[Epicureanism#Ethics|Epicurean ethics]]):
{{blockquote|31. Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another.
32. Those animals which are incapable of making binding agreements with one another not to inflict nor suffer harm are without either justice or injustice; and likewise for those peoples who either could not or would not form binding agreements not to inflict nor suffer harm.
33. There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm.[{{cite web |author=Vincent Cook |url=http://www.epicurus.net/en/principal.html |title=Principal Doctrines |publisher=Epicurus |date=2000-08-26 |access-date=2012-09-26 |archive-date=2007-04-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070407084128/http://www.epicurus.net/en/principal.html |url-status=live }}]}}
===Renaissance developments===
[[Quentin Skinner]] has argued that several critical modern innovations in contract theory are found in the writings from [[French Calvinist|French Calvinists]] and [[Huguenots]], whose work in turn was invoked by writers in the [[Low Countries]] who objected to their subjection to [[Spain]] and, later still, by [[Catholicism in England|Catholics in England]].[Quentin Skinner, ''The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: Volume 2: The Age of the Reformation'' (Cambridge, 1978)] [[Francisco Suárez]] (1548–1617), from the [[School of Salamanca]], might be considered an early theorist of the social contract, theorizing [[natural law]] in an attempt to limit the [[Divine Right of Kings|divine right]] of [[absolute monarchy]]. All of these groups were led to articulate notions of popular [[sovereignty]] by means of a social covenant or contract, and all of these arguments began with proto-"state of nature" arguments, to the effect that the basis of politics is that everyone is by nature free of subjection to any government.
These arguments, however, relied on a corporatist theory found in [[Roman law]], according to which "a populus" can exist as a distinct legal entity. Thus, these arguments held that a group of people can join a government because it has the capacity to exercise a single will and make decisions with a single voice in the absence of sovereign authority—a notion rejected by Hobbes and later contract theorists.
==Philosophers==
===Thomas Hobbes' ''Leviathan'' (1651)===
{{main|Leviathan (Hobbes book)}}
The first modern philosopher to articulate a detailed contract theory was [[Thomas Hobbes]] (1588–1679). According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the [[state of nature]] were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", a state in which self-interest and the absence of reliably protected rights and contracts prevented the "social", or society. Life was "anarchic" (without rulers or the concept of sovereignty). Individuals in the state of nature were apolitical and asocial. This state of nature is followed by the social contract.
The social contract was seen as an "occurrence" during which individuals came together and ceded some of their [[natural rights|individual rights]] so that others would cede theirs.[E.g. person{{nbsp}}A gives up his/her right to kill person{{nbsp}}B if person{{nbsp}}B does the same.] This resulted in the establishment of the state—a sovereign entity like the individuals (now under its rule) used to be, which would create laws to regulate [[social interactions]]. Human life was thus no longer "a war of all against all". Notably, this theory features the ability of individuals to irrevocably relinquish their rights, even to a state which has absolute authority over life and death. How one could be said to do so "freely" while in the state of nature, i.e. under actual or potential duress, is not fully worked out by Hobbes or other social contract theorists (cf. "inalienable rights" in the U.S. [[United States Declaration of Independence|Declaration of Independence]], with marked Lockean influence, wherein rights are characterized as God-given and merely guaranteed or protected by the state. For a right to be "inalienable" arguably precludes its being given up under some or all circumstances by a rational autonomous agent bearing or possessing those rights as social contract theories require).
The state system, which grew out of the social contract, was, however, also anarchic (without rulers). Just as the individuals in the state of nature had been sovereign and thus guided by self-interest and the absence of rights, so states now acted in their self-interest in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were thus bound to be in conflict because there was no sovereign over and above the state (more powerful) capable of imposing some system such as social-contract laws on everyone by force. Indeed, Hobbes' work helped to serve as a basis for the [[Political realism|realism]] theories of international relations which consider the basic unit of analysis to be states with no overarching higher authority (akin to the "anarchy" of Hobbes' state of nature), advanced by [[E. H. Carr]] and [[Hans Morgenthau]]. Hobbes wrote in ''[[Leviathan (Hobbes book)|Leviathan]]'' that humans ("we") need the "terrour of some Power" otherwise humans will not heed the [[Golden Rule|law of reciprocity]], "(in summe) doing to others, as wee would be done to".[{{cite book|last1=Hobbes|first1=Thomas|title=Leviathan|url=https://archive.org/details/leviathanpenguin00thom|url-access=registration|date=1985|publisher=Penguin|location=London|page=[https://archive.org/details/leviathanpenguin00thom/page/223 223]|isbn=9780140431957}}]
===John Locke's ''Second Treatise of Government'' (1689)===
[[John Locke]]'s conception of the social contract differed from Hobbes' in several fundamental ways, retaining only the central notion that individuals in a state of nature would willingly come together to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature would be bound morally, by the [[Natural law|Law of Nature]], in which man has the "power... to preserve his property; that is, his life, liberty and estate against the injuries and attempts of other men". Without government to defend them against those seeking to injure or enslave them, Locke further believed people would have no security in their rights and would live in fear. Individuals, to Locke, would only agree to form a state that would provide, in part, a "neutral judge", acting to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it.[{{Cite journal|last=Gaba|first=Jeffery|date=Spring 2007|title=John Locke and the Meaning of the Takings Clause|url=https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3727&context=mlr|journal=Missouri Law Review|volume=72|issue=2|access-date=2018-04-19|archive-date=2021-03-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210305162433/https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3727&context=mlr|url-status=live}}][{{Cite book|last=Locke|first=John|author-link=John Locke|date=1690|title=Two Treatises on Civil Government|publisher=Books on Demand |url=https://english.hku.hk/staff/kjohnson/PDF/LockeJohnSECONDTREATISE1690.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://english.hku.hk/staff/kjohnson/PDF/LockeJohnSECONDTREATISE1690.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|isbn=9783749437412}}]
While Hobbes argued for near-absolute authority, Locke argued for inviolate freedom under law in his [[Two Treatises of Government#Second Treatise|''Second Treatise of Government'']]. Locke argued that a government's legitimacy comes from the citizens' delegation to the government of their absolute right of violence (reserving the inalienable right of self-defense or "self-preservation"), along with elements of other rights (e.g. property will be liable to taxation) as necessary to achieve the goal of security through granting the state a monopoly of violence, whereby the government, as an impartial judge, may use the collective force of the populace to administer and enforce the law, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executioner—the condition in the state of nature.{{citation needed|date=February 2017}}[{{Cite web |last=Locke |first=John |orig-date=1690 |title=Second Treatise of Government |url=https://www.csus.edu/indiv/s/simpsonl/hist162/locke.pdf |pages=20–21}}]
===Jean-Jacques Rousseau's ''Du Contrat social'' (1762)===
[[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]] (1712–1778), in his influential 1762 treatise ''[[The Social Contract]]'', outlined a different version of social-contract theory, as the foundations of society based on the sovereignty of the "[[general will]]".
Rousseau's political theory differs in important ways from that of Locke and Hobbes. Rousseau's collectivist conception is most evident in his development of the "luminous conception" (which he credited to [[Denis Diderot]]) of the "[[general will]]". Summarised, the "[[general will]]" is the power of all the citizens' collective interest—not to be confused with their individual interests.
Although Rousseau wrote that the British were perhaps at the time the freest people on earth, he did not approve of their representative government, nor any form of representative government. Rousseau believed that society was only legitimate when the sovereign (i.e. the "[[general will]]") were the sole [[legislator]]s. He also stated that the individual must accept "the total alienation to the whole community of each associate with all his rights".[{{Cite book|last=Rousseau|first=Jean-Jacques|title=The social contract; and, the first and second discourses / Jean-Jacques Rousseau; edited and with an introduction by Susan Dunn; with essays by Gita May [and others].|publisher=New Haven: Yale University Press|year=2002|isbn=9780300129434|location=|pages=163}}] In short, Rousseau meant that in order for the social contract to work, individuals ''must'' forfeit their rights to the whole so that such conditions were "equal for all".[{{Cite book|last=Rousseau|first=Jean-Jacques|title=The social contract; and, the first and second discourses / Jean-Jacques Rousseau; edited and with an introduction by Susan Dunn; with essays by Gita May [and others].|publisher=New Haven : Yale University Press|year=2002|isbn=9780300129434|location=|pages=163}}]{{blockquote|[The social contract] can be reduced to the following terms: ''Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and in a body, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.''[Jean-Jacques Rousseau, ''Œuvres complètes'', ed. B. Gagnebin and M. Raymond (Paris, 1959–95), III, 361; ''The Collected Writings of Rousseau'', ed. C. Kelley and R. Masters (Hanover, 1990–), IV, 139.]}}
Rousseau's other writings assert that his striking phrase that man must "be forced to be free"['' Oeuvres complètes'', III, 364; ''The Collected Writings of Rousseau'', IV, 141.] should be understood{{according to whom|date=May 2019}} this way: since the indivisible and inalienable popular sovereignty decides what is good for the whole, if an individual rejects this "civil liberty"[{{Cite book|last=Rousseau|first=Jean-Jacques|title=The social contract; and, the first and second discourses / Jean-Jacques Rousseau; edited and with an introduction by Susan Dunn; with essays by Gita May [and others].|publisher=New Haven : Yale University Press|year=2002|isbn=9780300129434|location=|pages=167}}] in place of "natural liberty"[
{{cite book
| last1 = Gourevitch
| first1 = Victor
| translator1-last = Gourevitch
| translator1-first = Victor
| year = 1997
| chapter = Of the Social Contract
| editor1-last = Gourevitch
| editor1-first = Victor
| title = The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=6L9tDwAAQBAJ
| series = Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought
| edition = 2nd
| location = Cambridge
| publisher = Cambridge University Press
| publication-date = 2018
| page = 66
| isbn = 9781107150812
| access-date = 2019-05-11
| quote = Is it not nevertheless a gain to risk for the sake of what makes for our security just a portion of what we would have to risk for our own sakes as soon as we are deprived of it?
}}
] thus suggesting the origins of the state as a form of mutual [[insurance]].
===Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's individualist social contract (1851)===
While Rousseau's social contract is based on [[popular sovereignty]] and not on individual sovereignty, there are other theories espoused by [[individualist]]s, [[libertarians]], and [[Anarchism|anarchists]] that do not involve agreeing to anything more than [[Negative and positive rights|negative rights]] and creates only a limited state, if any.
[[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]] (1809–1865) advocated a conception of social contract that did not involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract was not between individuals and the state, but rather among individuals who refrain from coercing or governing each other, each one maintaining complete sovereignty upon him- or herself:
{{blockquote|What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau's] idea. The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society. In this, the notion of commutative justice, first brought forward by the primitive fact of exchange, ... is substituted for that of distributive justice ... Translating these words, contract, commutative justice, which are the language of the law, into the language of business, and you have commerce, that is to say, in its highest significance, the act by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all pretension to govern each other.|Pierre-Joseph Proudhon|''[[The General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century|General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century]]'' (1851)}}
===John Rawls' ''Theory of Justice'' (1971)===
Building on the work of Immanuel Kant with its presumption of limits on the state,[• Gerald Gaus and Shane D. Courtland, 2011, [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ "Liberalism"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180908003440/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ |date=2018-09-08 }}, 1.1, ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''.]
• Immanuel Kant, ([1797]). ''[[The Metaphysics of Morals]]'', Part{{nbsp}}1. [[John Rawls]] (1921–2002), in ''[[A Theory of Justice]]'' (1971), proposed a contractarian approach whereby rational people in a hypothetical "[[original position]]" would set aside their individual preferences and capacities under a "[[veil of ignorance]]" and agree to certain general principles of justice and legal organization. This idea is also used as a [[game theory|game-theoretical]] formalization of the notion of fairness.
===David Gauthier's ''Morals by Agreement'' (1986)===
{{Main|Contractarian ethics}}
[[David Gauthier]]'s "neo-Hobbesian" theory argues that cooperation between two independent and self-interested parties is indeed possible, especially when it comes to understanding morality and politics.[{{cite web |url=http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/#SH3b |title=Social Contract Theory [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] |publisher=Iep.utm.edu |date=2004-10-15 |access-date=2011-01-20 |archive-date=2011-01-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110116033545/http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/#SH3b |url-status=live }}] Gauthier notably points out the advantages of cooperation between two parties when it comes to the challenge of the [[prisoner's dilemma]]. He proposes that, if two parties were to stick to the original agreed-upon arrangement and morals outlined by the contract, they would both experience an optimal result.[{{cite web |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/#3 |title=Contractarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) |publisher=Plato.stanford.edu |access-date=2011-01-20 |archive-date=2011-04-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110429065139/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/#3 |url-status=live }}] In his model for the social contract, factors including trust, rationality, and self-interest keep each party honest and dissuade them from breaking the rules.[[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/ Jean Jacques Rousseau] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171020024853/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/ |date=2017-10-20 }} on the [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]]
{{blockquote|In every real democracy, magistracy is not an advantage, but a burdensome charge which cannot justly be imposed on one individual rather than another. The law alone can lay the charge on him on whom the lot falls. For, the conditions being then the same for all, and the choice not depending on any human will, there is no particular application to alter the universality of the law. |[[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], ''The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right. Book IV''[[https://www.bartleby.com/168/403.html Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778). Social Contract & Discourses. 1913. The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right. Book IV Chapter III. Elections] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230106162236/https://www.bartleby.com/168/403.html |date=2023-01-06 }} on [[Bartleby.com]]]}}
According to other social contract theorists, when the government fails to secure their natural rights (Locke) or satisfy the best interests of society, citizens can withdraw their obligation to obey or change the leadership through elections or other means including, when necessary, violence. Locke believed that [[Natural and legal rights|natural rights]] were inalienable, and therefore the rule of God superseded government authority, while Rousseau believed that democracy (majority-rule) was the best way to ensure welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the [[United States Declaration of Independence]].[[https://people.smu.edu/religionandfoundingusa/declaration-of-independence-introduction/sample-page-2/] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230106162235/https://people.smu.edu/religionandfoundingusa/declaration-of-independence-introduction/sample-page-2/|date=2023-01-06}} at the [[Southern Methodist University]]]
===Arab world===
The social contract can be used as a theoretical object to analyse the capacity for a population to accept change, upon which the change exerts 'pressure'. In an analysis of the consequences of the [[Gulf Cooperation Council]] states changing energy prices, the social contract defines the capacity for change. Higher energy prices for resident households can have an adverse impact, meaning that the consent of the participants in the contract needs to be maintained, because before energy price increases, prices for residents were kept low by charging higher prices for exported oil.[{{cite report |last1=Moerenhout |first1=Tom |title=Harnessing social safety in a context of changing social contracts: compensation schemes and subsidy reforms in the GCC |date=2017 |url=https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:547e343c-2183-4531-930c-23a7b8bfb761 |language=English |publisher= Oxford Institute of Energy Studies}}]
==Influence on the US Declaration of Independence==
Ideas related to the social contract theory, particularly those of John Locke, intellectually inspired the [[United States Declaration of Independence]]. His ideas on every individual’s’ right to ‘life, liberty, and property’ as well as the people’s ‘right to revolt’ were particularly influential.
===Life, Liberty, and Property===
Locke’s idea that everyone has the right to 'life, liberty, and property' inspired the founding document. The Declaration posits, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”[ United States, Congress. “The Declaration of Independence.” 4 July 1776. America's Founding Documents, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript. ]. The terms ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ reflect the ideas of John Locke, who argued for human beings’ natural rights to ‘life, liberty, and property.’ In The Second Treatise of Government, Locke has asserted that “the state of Nature (...) teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions[ Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. 1823. Edited by Rod Hay, “The Works of John Locke,” vol. V, McMaster University Archive of the History of Economic Thought. York University, www.yorku.ca/comninel/courses/3025pdf/Locke.pdf. ]. Since the “state of nature,” which largely means the condition in which humans used to live before civilization[ Munro, André. “State of Nature.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 9 Sept. 2024, www.britannica.com/topic/state-of-nature-political-theory. ], teaches humans to learn that all were born “equal and independent,” Locke emphasizes the inherent equality that exists among human beings, which is reflected in the Declaration's idea that "all men are created equal." Furthermore, Locke argued that men “have rights to life, (...) liberty, or possessions” and that “no one ought to harm another” in these rights. Since the rights to ‘life’ and ‘liberty,’ which constitute two of the three essential rights protected under the social contract, are repeated in the Declaration, Locke’s idea on the natural rights of human beings proves to be influential. As the John Locke Foundation, an independent and nonprofit think tank, establishes, "Locke’s influence can be seen throughout the Declaration of Independence" through the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” [ Swanzy, Brenée Goforth. “How John Locke Influenced the Declaration of Independence.” John Locke Foundation, 4 July 2019, www.johnlocke.org/john-locke-and-the-declaration-of-independence/. ]
===The Right to Revolt===
Locke’s idea of ‘the right to revolt’ was also influential. The Declaration posits that, when the natural rights of human beings are violated under the social contract, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”[ United States, Congress. “The Declaration of Independence.” 4 July 1776. America's Founding Documents, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript. ]. The usage of the word “right” not only shows how people should be allowed to revolt, but have a moral obligation to overthrow a tyrannical government. In a similar vein, Locke posited that people have ‘the right to revolt’ when their natural rights are violated. According to the philosopher, “Whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience” and gain the “right to resume their original liberty”[ Jefferson, Thomas. “Letter to Henry Lee. 8 May 1825. Founders Online, National Archives, founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-5212 ]. An explicit mention of Locke’s name, adding to the letter’s admission that his influence proved to be significant in serving as an inspiration for the text, further strengthens the claim that Locke's ideas, particularly those pertaining to the social contract, inspired the Declaration.
==Criticism==
===Consent of the governed===
An early critic of social contract theory was Rousseau's friend the philosopher [[David Hume]], who in 1742 published an essay "Of Civil Liberty". The second part of this essay, entitled "Of the Original Contract",[{{cite book|author=Hume, David|title= Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary, Part II, Essay XII, Of The Original Contract}}] stresses that the concept of a "social contract" is a convenient fiction: {{blockquote|As no party, in the present age can well support itself without a philosophical or speculative system of principles annexed to its political or practical one; we accordingly find that each of the factions into which this nation is divided has reared up a fabric of the former kind, in order to protect and cover that scheme of actions which it pursues. ... The one party [defenders of the absolute and divine right of kings, or Tories], by tracing up government to the DEITY, endeavor to render it so sacred and inviolate that it must be little less than sacrilege, however tyrannical it may become, to touch or invade it in the smallest article. The other party [the Whigs, or believers in constitutional monarchy], by founding government altogether on the consent of the PEOPLE suppose that there is a kind of original contract by which the subjects have tacitly reserved the power of resisting their sovereign, whenever they find themselves aggrieved by that authority with which they have for certain purposes voluntarily entrusted him. |David Hume, "On Civil Liberty" [II.XII.1][''[http://www.randybarnett.com/ Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200820054950/http://www.randybarnett.com/ |date=2020-08-20 }}'', Randy Barnett (2004)] that, while presence in the territory of a society may be necessary for consent, this does not constitute consent to ''all'' rules the society might make regardless of their content. A second condition of consent is that the rules be consistent with underlying principles of justice and the protection of natural and social rights, and have procedures for effective protection of those rights (or liberties). This has also been discussed by O.{{nbsp}}A. Brownson,[{{cite web |url=http://constitution.org/oab/am_rep.htm |author=O. A. Brownson |title=''The American Republic: its Constitution, Tendencies, and Destiny'' |year=1866 |access-date=2011-02-13 |archive-date=2011-10-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111004204024/http://constitution.org/oab/am_rep.htm |url-status=dead }}] who argued that, in a sense, three "constitutions" are involved: first, the ''constitution of nature'' that includes all of what the Founders called "[[natural law]]"; second, the ''constitution of society'', an unwritten and commonly understood set of rules for the society formed by a social contract before it establishes a government, by which it does establish the third, a ''constitution of government''. To consent, a necessary condition is that the rules be ''[[constitution]]al'' in that sense.
===Tacit consent===
The theory of a tacit social contract holds that by remaining in the territory controlled by some society, which usually has a government, people give consent to join that society and be governed by its government if any. This consent is what gives legitimacy to such a government.
Other writers have argued that consent to join the society is not necessarily consent to its government. For that, the government must be set up according to a constitution of government that is consistent with the superior unwritten constitutions of nature and society.[{{cite web |url=http://constitution.org/oab/am_rep.htm |author=O. A. Brownson |title=''The American Republic: Its Constitution, Tendencies, and Destiny'' |year=1866 |access-date=2011-02-13 |archive-date=2011-10-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111004204024/http://constitution.org/oab/am_rep.htm |url-status=dead }}]
=== Explicit consent ===
The theory of an implicit social contract also goes under the principles of explicit consent.[{{Cite news|url=https://www.itgovernance.eu/blog/en/gaining-explicit-consent-under-the-gdpr-2/|title=Gaining explicit consent under the GDPR|date=2017-07-05|work=IT Governance Blog|access-date=2018-02-08|language=en-GB|archive-date=2018-02-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180209063250/https://www.itgovernance.eu/blog/en/gaining-explicit-consent-under-the-gdpr-2/|url-status=live}}] The main difference between tacit consent and explicit consent is that explicit consent is meant to leave no room for misinterpretation. Moreover, you should directly state what it is that you want and the person has to respond in a concise manner that either confirms or denies the proposition.
===Contracts must be consensual===
According to the will theory of contract, a contract is not presumed valid unless all parties voluntarily agree to it, either tacitly or explicitly, without coercion. [[Lysander Spooner]], a 19th-century lawyer who argued before the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] and a staunch supporter of a right of contract between individuals, argued in his essay ''[[No Treason]]'' that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all. As an [[abolitionism|abolitionist]], he made similar arguments about the unconstitutionality of slavery in the US.
Joseph Kary asserts that Modern Anglo-American law, like European civil law, is based on a will theory of contract, according to which all terms of a contract are binding on the parties because they chose those terms for themselves. This was less true when Hobbes wrote ''Leviathan''; at that time more importance was attached to consideration (meaning a mutual exchange of benefits necessary to the formation of a valid contract) and most contracts had implicit terms that arose from the nature of the contractual relationship rather than from the choices made by the parties. Accordingly, it has been argued that social contract theory is more consistent with the contract law of the time of Hobbes and Locke than with the contract law of the present time and that certain features in the social contract which seem anomalous, such as the belief that people are bound by a contract formulated by their distant ancestors, would not have seemed as strange to Hobbes' contemporaries as they do to people today.[Joseph Kary, "Contract Law and the Social Contract: What Legal History Can Teach Us About the Political Theory of Hobbes and Locke", 31 Ottawa Law Review 73 (Jan. 2000)]
===Individuals are not better off under states===
In their book ''Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy'', the philosopher Karl Widerquist and anthropologist Grant McCall criticise social contract theory on the grounds that not all individuals are better off than they could reasonably expect to be in the state of nature, thereby removing the justification for giving up liberty in exchange for welfare.[{{cite book |last1=Widerquist |first1=Karl |last2=McCall |first2=Grant |date=2017 |title=Prehistoric Myths in Modern Political Philosophy |publisher=Edinburgh University Press |isbn=9780748678679 |url=https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/book-prehistoric-myths-in-modern-political-philosophy.html |access-date=June 20, 2026}}]
==See also==
{{col div|colwidth=25em}}
* {{Portal inline|Philosophy}}
* [[Consent]]
* [[Consent theory]]
* [[Contract]]
* [[Mandate (politics)]]
* [[Organic crisis]]
* [[Right of rebellion]]
* [[Self determination]]
* [[Social capital]]
* [[Social cohesion]]
* [[Social Contract (Britain)]] – 1970s British Labour Party policy involving trade-offs between employment conditions and social welfare
* [[Social disintegration]]
* [[Social rights (social contract theory)]]
* [[Social solidarity]]
* [[Societal collapse]]
* [[Sovereign citizen movement]]
=== Constitutional frameworks ===
* [[Classical republicanism]]
* [[Federalism]]
* [[Ordered Liberty]]
* [[Rule of law]]
=== Texts, moral philosophy, and critiques ===
* [[Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development]]
* ''[[The Racial Contract]]''
* ''[[Rights of Man]]''
* ''[[Social Justice in the Liberal State]]''
=== Other contracts and early-modern political theology ===
* {{anl|Henrician Articles}}
* {{anl|Mandate of Heaven}}
* {{anl|Mayflower Compact}}
* {{anl|Monarchomachs}}
* {{anl|National Pact}}
* {{anl|School of Salamanca}}
{{colend}}
==References==
{{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23801883.2024.2411053#abstract|author(s)=Linderborg, Otto H.|vrt=|from this source=}}
{{Reflist}}
==Further reading==
* Ankerl, Guy. ''Towards a Social Contract on a Worldwide Scale: Solidarity contracts. Research series''. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies [Pamphlet], 1980, {{ISBN|92-9014-165-4}}.
* Carlyle, R. W. ''A History of mediæval political theory in the West''. Edinburgh London: W. Blackwood and sons, 1916.
* Falaky, Faycal (2014). ''Social Contract, Masochist Contract: Aesthetics of Freedom and Submission in Rousseau''. Albany: State University of New York Press. {{ISBN|978-1-4384-4989-0}}
* Gierke, Otto Friedrich Von and Ernst Troeltsch. ''Natural Law and the Theory of Society 1500 to 1800.'' Translated by Sir Ernest Barker, with a Lecture on "The Ideas of Natural Law and Humanity", by Ernst Troeltsch. Cambridge: The University Press, 1950.
* Gough, J. W.. ''The Social Contract''. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1936.
* Harrison, Ross. ''Hobbes, Locke, and Confusion's Empire: an Examination of Seventeenth-Century Political Philosophy''. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
* [http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html Hobbes, Thomas. ''Leviathan''. 1651.]
* Locke, John. ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20070304114414/http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html Second Treatise on Government]'' 1689.
* {{cite encyclopedia |last1=Narveson |first1= Jan |author-link1= Jan Narveson |last2= Trenchard |first2=David |editor-first=Ronald |editor-last=Hamowy |editor-link=Ronald Hamowy |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism |chapter= Contractarianism/Social Contract |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC |year=2008 |publisher= [[SAGE Publishing|SAGE]]; [[Cato Institute]] |location= Thousand Oaks, CA |doi= 10.4135/9781412965811.n66|isbn= 978-1412965804 |oclc=750831024| lccn = 2008009151 |pages=103–05 |url-access= subscription }}
* Pettit, Philip. ''Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government''. NY: Oxford U.P., 1997, {{ISBN|0-19-829083-7}}, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997
* Pufendorf, Samuel, James Tully and Michael Silverthorne. ''Pufendorf: On the Duty of Man and Citizen according to Natural Law. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought''. Cambridge University Press 1991.
* Rawls, John. ''A Theory of Justice'' (1971)
* Riley, Patrick. "How Coherent is the Social Contract Tradition?" ''Journal of the History of Ideas'' 34: 4 (Oct. – Dec., 1973): 543–62.
* Riley, Patrick. ''Will and Political Legitimacy: A Critical Exposition of Social Contract Theory in Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Hegel''. Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 1982.
* Riley, Patrick. ''The Social Contract and Its Critics'', chapter 12 in ''The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Political Thought''. Eds. [[Mark Goldie]] and [[Robert Wokler]]. Vol 4 of ''The Cambridge History of Political Thought''. Cambridge University Press, 2006. pp. 347–75.
* Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. ''[https://web.archive.org/web/20080404234937/http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/r/rousseau/jean_jacques/r864s/complete.html The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right] ''(1762)
* Scanlon, T. M. 1998. ''What We Owe To Each Other''. Cambridge, Massachusetts
==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
{{EB1911 poster|Social Contract}}
{{Library resources box|by=no|onlinebooks=no|about=yes|lcheading=social contract}}
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008w3xm "The Social Contract". ''In Our Time'' (7 Feb 2008). BBC Radio Program. Melvyn Bragg, moderator; with Melissa Lane, Cambridge University; Susan James, University of London; Karen O'Brien, University of Warwick.]
* [https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radio4/2012/05/in_our_time_-_game_theory.html "Game Theory". ''In Our Time'' (May 10, 2012). BBC Radio Program. Melvin Bragg, moderator, with Ian Stewart, Emeritus, University of Warwick, Andrew Colman, University of Leicester, and Richard Bradley, London School of Economics.] Discussion of game theory that touches on relation of game theory to the Social Contract.
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20120413015649/http://arcade.stanford.edu/journals/rofl/files/article_pdfs/roflv02i01_Foisneau_121510.pdf Foisneau, Luc. "Governing a Republic: Rousseau's General Will and the Problem of Government". ''Republics of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge, Politics, and the Arts'' 2, no. 1 (December 15, 2010)]
* [http://www.nlnrac.org/classical/late-medieval-transformations Sigmund, Paul E. "Natural Law, Consent, and Equality: William of Ockham to Richard Hooker". Published on website ''Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism''. A We the People project of the National Endowment for the Humanities.]
* {{cite SEP |url-id=contractarianism |title=Contractarianism |last=Cudd |first=Ann}}
* {{cite SEP |url-id=contractarianism-contemporary |title=Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract |last=D'Agostino |first=Fred}}
* {{cite IEP |url-id=soc-cont |title=Social contract}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110510101647/http://www.againstpolitics.com/the-contractarian-theory-of-morals-faq/ Jan Narveson. "The Contractarian Theory of Morals:FAQ". On website ''Against Politics: Anarchy Naturalized''.]
* [http://www.worldtrans.org/sov/soccont.html A satirical example of a social contract for the United States from the Libertarian Party.] Parody.
* [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1268335 Social Contract: A Basic Contradiction in Western Liberal Democracy], Eric Engle. A critique of social contract theory as counter-factual myth.
{{Political philosophy}}
{{Thomas Hobbes}}
{{Portal bar|History|Law|Philosophy|Politics|Society}}
{{Authority control}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Social Contract}}
[[Category:Political concepts]]
[[Category:Social theories]]
[[Category:Thomas Hobbes]]
[[Category:John Locke]]
[[Category:John Rawls]]
[[Category:Sovereignty]]
[[Category:Social agreement]]
[[Category:Sociological terminology]]
[[Category:Concepts in political philosophy]]
[[Category:Politics]]