Contents
Introduction
Social contract theory has its origins in prominent Enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, who proposed that moral and political obligations of individuals arise from agreements made between members of society. This centuries-old concept still carries relevance today. Modern philosophers and thinkers have reinterpreted social contract theory in contemporary contexts, applying its core notions of consent, mutual obligation and justice to present-day issues. This article will examine some of the influential modern interpretations of social contract theory and its evolution as a framework for moral and political philosophy. The core thesis is that contemporary thinkers have revived interest in social contracts by reexamining them through modern lenses.
John Rawls and Justice as Fairness
One of the most impactful reinterpretations of social contract theory came from American political philosopher John Rawls in the 1970s. Rawls aimed to establish a theory of justice based on revised social contract thinking. His key thought experiment proposed imagining a “veil of ignorance” — if we had no prior knowledge of our eventual place in society, income, status or talents, what principles would we all rationally agree to? Rawls argued in this “original position”, we would adopt two basic principles of justice. First, all citizens should have equal basic liberties. Second, inequalities are only justified if they benefit the least advantaged members of society through greater opportunities.
Rawls believed these principles describe a system of “justice as fairness” that free and rational people would mutually consent to. The resulting society would be both morally just and politically stable. Rawls’ theories sparked renewed interest in social contract ideas, suggesting they could provide a modern philosophical basis for conceptions of justice, rights and democratic participation. He contends a just society is not merely one we happen to live in, but one we would actively collectively choose to create if given the opportunity. While Rawls’ abstract principles elicit criticism for being divorced from real-world politics, his work strengthened conceptions of social justice and fairness as the standard for morally legitimate governance in the modern context.
Critiques and Defenses of Rawls
Rawls’ abstract theorizing draws criticism for being removed from the practical realities of politics and for relying too heavily on principles rather than feasibility. Feminist philosophers including Susan Moller Okin argued his notion of heads of households contracting on behalf of society incorporates inherent gender bias. However, supporters counter that Rawls provides an aspirational benchmark for a society built on equality and social justice that, while not wholly achievable, points us in the right moral direction. His work reinvigorated debate around social justice and fairness as vital pillars of a legitimate democracy. While imperfect, Rawls’ theories represent influential modern attempts to ground political obligations in ideals of mutual consent and justice that trace back to social contract traditions.
Social Contracts and Global Governance
Social contract theory has also been examined through the lens of international relations and global governance in recent decades. Cosmopolitan theorists propose that new forms of global social contracts are needed to establish shared political institutions, laws and justice systems that could manage our interconnected world. However, realist scholars argue true social contracts require a common identity and shared values, which does not exist across vastly diverse modern societies worldwide. An area where we see glimpses of a global social contract is in multinational agreements on issues like climate change. The Paris Climate Accord can be viewed as a form of contract between nations to collectively limit environmental damages for their mutual long-term interests. While controversial, ideas around global social contracts suggest possibilities to expand governance notions of consent and justice beyond national borders in our globally interdependent age. However, considerable barriers around competing interests and values of diverse societies remain.
Conclusion
Modern reexaminations of social contract theory have demonstrated its continued relevance in thinking about political authority and justice. Core notions of rational consent, mutual obligation and the tradeoffs between individual liberty and social order remain deeply influential in moral and political philosophy. Within nations, social contract ideals have shaped conceptions of citizenship, rights and governance based on Enlightenment values of freedom, justice and equality. While not always achieved, striving toward “justice as fairness” remains an aspirational benchmark for domestic social contracts in liberal democracies. At the global level, social contract thinking speaks to possibilities of expanding frameworks of agreed obligations and justice beyond the nation-state. However, considerable barriers around interests and values persist. Overall, contemporary interpretations have reinforced social contract theory as an indispensable framework for construing the legitimacy of political institutions and the moral bonds that hold diverse societies together through principles of reason, choice and mutual benefit. The idea of consensual agreement as the basis of social order retains immense force.
