Agreement Philosophy Definition

Some of the new literature focuses on how negotiated theories can ensure the fairness and impartiality of the initial negotiating situation without addressing external and independent moral standards, as the contractor does. For the contractor, all moral norms must be the result of an agreement by rational agents, but if the contractor must use previous moral standards to reach an agreement, then it is not clear what type of work the agreement actually does in defining the content of moral norms. At the same time, the agreed result cannot be a moral result, if there is no constraint on the starting situation, and may rather be a result according to the principle, as Rawls says, “to each according to his threat advantage” (1971, 141). Two possible strategies are the argument that assumptions to ensure fairness and impartiality of the initial situation, such as the assumption that contractors are symmetrical, are either considered a condition of rationality or justified for strategic reasons. The idea that certain assumptions, such as symmetry, arise from the exercise of rationality, has recently attracted criticism because such assumptions constitute substantive constraints that are theoretically inaccessible to contracts (Thrasher 2014). Others have tried to defend the existence of such assumptions in contract theory (Thoma 2015). What is the social contract? A citizen`s agreement with the government? No, it would just mean the continuation of [Roussau`s] idea. The social contract is a man`s agreement with man; An agreement that must follow through on what we call society. In this one, the notion of communist justice, first presented by the primitive fact of the exchange, … is replaced by that of fair distribution …

These words, these treaties, communal justice, which are the language of the law, to translate into the language of the economy, and you have trade, that is, in their utmost importance, the action by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all the advantages to govern each other. The social contract begins with Rousseau`s most frequently mentioned line: “Man was born free, and he is chained everywhere” (49). This requirement is the conceptual bridge between the descriptive work of the second speech and the temporary work to come. Humans are essentially free and free in the state of nature, but the “progress” of civilization has replaced submission to others with dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which we judge ourselves by comparisons with others. As a return to the state of nature is neither feasible nor desirable, the aim of the policy is to restore freedom and thus reconcile who we really and essentially are with coexistence. This is the fundamental philosophical problem that the social contract wants to address: how can we be free and live together? In other words, how can we live together without succumbing to the violence and coercion of others? We can do this, says Rousseau, by submitting our individual and special will to the collective or general will created by the agreement with other free and equal people. Like Hobbes and Locke before him and unlike ancient philosophers, all men are naturally made equal, therefore no one has the natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified authority is the authority that arises from agreements or covenants.