Philip Pettit (born 1945) argued in Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (1997) that the theory of the social contract, which is classically based on the consent of the governed, should be changed. Rather than arguing for explicit consent, which can always be made, Pettit argues that the absence of effective rebellion against him is the only legitimacy of a treaty. Hobbes` political theory is best understood when it is understood in two parts: his theory of human motivation, psychological egoism, and his theory of the social contract, which is based on the hypothetical state of nature. Hobbes mainly has a certain theory of human nature that leads to a certain vision of morality and politics, as developed in his philosophical masterpiece Leviathan, published in 1651. The scientific revolution, with its important new discoveries that the universe could be both described and predicted in accordance with the universal laws of nature, greatly influenced Hobbes. He tried to provide a theory of human nature that would match the discoveries in the sciences of the inanimate universe. His psychological theory is therefore shaped by the mechanism, the general idea that everything in the universe is created only by moving matter. According to Hobbes, this also extends to human behavior. Human macrobehavior can rightly be described as the effect of certain types of microhavior, even though some of the latter behavior is invisible to us. Behaviors such as walking, talking and others are therefore themselves generated by other actions in us.

And these other actions are themselves caused by the interaction of our body with other bodies, human or otherwise, which create in us certain chains of causes and effects and ultimately lead to human behavior that we can clearly observe. According to this view, we, including all our actions and decisions, are then just as explainable in relation to the universal laws of nature as the movements of celestial bodies. The gradual decay of memory can be explained, for example, by inertia. As more and more sensory information is presented to us, the residue of previous impressions « slows down » over time. From Hobbes` point of view, we are essentially very complicated organic machines that respond to the stimuli of the world mechanically and in accordance with the universal laws of human nature. Thus, from Mills` perspective, racism is not just an unfortunate coincidence of Western democratic and political ideals. It is not that we have a political system that has been perfectly designed and, unfortunately, applied imperfectly. One of the reasons we continue to think that the problem of race in the West is relatively superficial, that it does not go all the way, is the impact that the idealized social contract has on our imagination. We continue to believe, according to Mills, in the myths that social contract theory tells us – that everyone is equal, that everyone is treated fairly before the law, that the Founding Fathers campaigned for equality and freedom for all, etc. Thus, one of the real goals of social contract theory is to hide the true political reality from the eyes – some people are granted the rights and freedoms of full-fledged persons, and others are treated as sub-persons. The racial treaty shapes the very structure of our political systems and lays the foundation for the continued racial oppression of non-whites. So we cannot respond by simply including more non-whites in the mix of our political institutions, our representation, etc.

Rather, we need to review our policy in general from the point of view of the racial treaty and start from where we are, with full knowledge of how our society has been informed by the systematic exclusion of certain people from the realm of politics and the treaty. This « naturalized » feature of the racial contract, that is, it tells a story about who we really are and what is contained in our history, is better, according to Mills, because it promises to one day allow us to truly live up to the norms and values that are at the heart of Western political traditions. Rousseau also analyses the statutes in terms of risk management[17], proposing the origins of the State as a form of mutual insurance. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) advocated a conception of the social contract that did not consist in an individual relinquishing his sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract did not exist between individuals and the state, but between individuals who did not force or govern each other, each retaining complete sovereignty over himself: David Gauthier`s « neo-Hobbesian » theory holds that cooperation between two independent and selfish parties is actually possible, especially when it comes to understanding morality and politics. [19] Gauthier points in particular to the advantages of cooperation between two parties when it comes to challenging the prisoner`s dilemma. He suggests that if two parties respected the originally agreed agreement and morality set out in the contract, they would both achieve an optimal result. [19] [20] In his social contract model, factors such as trust, rationality and self-interest keep each party honest and prevent them from breaking the rules. [19] [20] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1712-1778, lived and wrote during arguably the most exhilarating period in the intellectual history of modern France – the Enlightenment. He was one of the bright lights of this intellectual movement, contributing to articles to Diderot`s Encyclopedia and participating in the Paris Salons, where the great intellectual questions of his time were pursued.

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 state of nature is therefore not the same as the state of war as it is according to Hobbes. However, this can turn into a state of war, especially a state of war over property disputes. While the state of nature is the state of freedom in which people recognize the law of nature and therefore do no harm to each other, the state of war between two or more people begins as soon as one person declares war on another by stealing from him or trying to make him his slave. Since there is no civilian power to turn to in its natural state, and since natural law allows them to defend their own lives, they can then kill those who would use violence against them. Since the natural state lacks civilian authority, it is likely to continue once the war begins.

And this is one of the strongest reasons why people must abandon the state of nature by joining forces to form a civilian government. According to the story of the prisoner`s dilemma, two people were interrogated separately for a crime they are suspected of being interrogated. .