Examining the Social Contract Theory: A Case of Refugee Crisis

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to provide analytical literature review of scholastic work related to the social contract theory. Many scholars have tried to argue from the theory of social contract and provided empirical examples for proving its pragmatic importance. We have also used a range of concepts and examined them on the bases of three criteria: accuracy of philosophical presumption, applying to the real time situation and testing on a rational falsification test. This thesis criticizes on the constitute parts of social contract like “human nature” and “state of nature” and tries to prove that they were wrongly conceptualized by the later scholars and theory of social contract was a useless effort in terms of its pragmatic importance. By using argumentation methodology, the first part of the thesis highlights the logical and philosophical fallacies and presumptions in the constituent parts social contract like human nature, state of nature and temporal ideas like state, nation and government. Secondly, this thesis argues that the current refugee crisis is an analogous situation as of “state of nature” and can be used an empirical case to testify the social contract theory. By using the Hobbes’s argument of morality and prisoner’s dilemma, a case has been developed to explain the possible outcomes of the tactics used by refugees and their host countries. Thirdly, this thesis argues that premises refugee crisis, refugee policy and universalism of refugee rights are concluding that if there was a social contract in 21st century then it is failing.