The Emergence of Legal Normativity: A Phenomenological Genealogy of Bodily Lawmaking

The social contract is one of the most influential political theories in Western philosophy. Although the social contract theory is mainly associated with a number of thinkers in the broad history of social and political philosophy, I am particularly focused on the social contract theory proffered by two British philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. While the social contract theory has mainly been influenced by these British philosophers, little has been done in terms of appraising its key normative ideas from non-Western philosophical traditions. In this article, I examine how the social contract theory might be understood differently from a non-Western perspective, if values salient in African communitarian philosophy are properly understood. As I attempt to establish how the African social contract theory can be gleaned from African communitarian philosophy, I make comparisons and contrasts between the social contract theory in the African tradition and the traditional social contract theory in Western philosophy. I intend to make a novel interpretation of the ideals of the former that are implicit in the African communitarian structure. I seek to provide reasons why the African communitarian structure could be taken as the normative basis for a plausible social contract theory in the African social and political context.

The author states the negative nature of Pascal's attitude towards the theories of natural law and social contract due to their fundamental inability to offer a positive maxim of human behavior. Author argues that one of the grounds for Pascal's criticism is that the theories of social contract and natural law rather fix and cement the negative aspects of man manifested in his natural state. Reconstructing the deeper foundations of this critique, the author argues that it is rather not Christianity in itself, but the existential spirit of Pascal's philosophy that makes him an opponent to the idea of the social contract and determines his negative position towards sociality. Pascal does not create a teaching in the field of social philosophy that can become an alternative to the social contract theory. His thoughts are characterized by the author rather as notes in the margins of the latter. These notes clearly show a line of criticism and a tendency towards the rejection of sociality, which is opposed to the social constructivism of the last two centuries of European history.

David Hume (1711-1776) has long been considered a severe denunciator of 'social contract theory', and this interpretation has implicitly premised a perspective that lays heavy weight on the importance of social contract in the history of political thought. This work presents Hume's critique of the Lockean version of the social contract, and identifies the issues responsible for such criticism. In Book 3 of Hume's Treatise on Human Nature (henceforth T), Hume displays his systematic criticism of social contract theory. Hume did not consider social contract theory as an important trend in the history of political thought. One of his points was that 'social contract theory' was quite new, strange and 'heterodoxical' in politics. This work offers an appraisal of Hume’s stance on the Lockean variant of “Social Contract Theory” and proposes a more judicious textual reading of his contributions in this regard.

This book features new approaches to social contract theory. Whereas traditional social contract theories and their adaptations in the twentieth century were developed for fairly homogeneous societies, societies in the twenty-first century often are characterized by conflicting first-order directives that stem from deep moral, political, religious, and cultural diversity. To address such diversity and the complexities of contemporary societies, new approaches (including formal approaches) to social contract theory have emerged that re-envision the social contract for a fragmented and sometimes polarized, yet interdependent social world. New social contract theory explores how, in a world of continuous disagreement on questions of justice, in particular the ideals of liberty and equality, society can not only progress, but also flourish and become more robust and open in its social fabric. This book brings together, for the first time, defenders and discussants of new social contract theory. It includes contributions by eminent and emerging scholars in this field. The book clarifies the distinct features of new social contract theory and provides a valuable starting point for discussion of this novel movement in social contract theory.

As a core theory of Western political philosophy, social contract theory shapes the foundation of Western political systems and plays an important role in understanding the sources of state power and the construction of government legitimacy. This article explores the relationship between social contract theory and political legitimacy and analyzes the evolution of ideas from history to modern times. Through the viewpoints of classic social contract theorists such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, this paper constructs the legitimacy basis that government power originates from the consent of the people. At the same time, the paper explores the influence of contract theory during the Enlightenment period on the American Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution, and discusses John Rawls’ reconstruction of modern contract theory, as well as the challenges posed by feminist and environmental ethics. Social contract theory has not only shaped political legitimacy in history but also demonstrated its lasting vitality and broad application prospects in contemporary political and ethical issues.

Examining the Social Contract Theory: A Case of Refugee Crisis

The topic of moral diversity is not only prevalent in contemporary moral and political philosophy, it is also practically relevant. Moral diversity, however, poses a significant challenge for moral theory building. John Thrasher (Synthese, forthcoming), in his discussion of public reason theory, which includes social contract theory, argues that if one seriously considers the goal of moral constructivism and considerations of representation and stability, then moral diversity poses an insurmountable problem for most public reason theories. I agree with Thrasher that moral diversity poses a significant challenge for orthodox multistage social contract theories. In fact, I even add a further problem for such theories under the assumption of deep moral diversity. Nevertheless, I argue that my (Moehler, Minimal morality: a multilevel social contract theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018) recently developed multilevel social contract theory overcomes these problems. I focus on some of the underexplored features of this theory to show that multilevel social contract theory offers one conceptually coherent and plausible way to render social contract theory viable and relevant for modern diverse societies.

The article researches the peculiarities of the social contract theory influence on the philosophical foundations of legal science. The author analyzes the classical doctrines of T. Hobbes, J. Locke, J.-J. Rousseau, who created the theory of social contract, the article substantiates the influence of this theory on the interpretation of certain legal principles, the function of law and the initial legal origins. It is studied the nature of the legal compromise between public and state legal principles. It is stated the scientific position that the contract as a legal attribute and negotiability as a legal property of the person are the order ontological foundations (instead of simply a civil category). T. Hobbes's theory of the social contract defends the position that the renunciation and transfer of absolute freedom and absolute "right to everything" is a transition from the individual to the general legal state of society, which makes it possible to answer questions about internal legal formation and human development as a legal entity. Locke demonstrates the concentration of legal meanings not in supernatural principles, but in man himself, since it is a person who is the source of legal potential. According to the position of J. Locke, individuals are endowed with equal freedom and as a consequence, equality in the perception of each other without any renunciation, and thus, are capable of legal compromise. Therefore J. Locke's theory of social contract allows to doctrinally substantiate key legal principles as innate integral legal attributes of human existence. The theory of social contract makes it possible to look at the nature of power, as well as communication between the sovereign and the people from a purely legal and anthropological point of view, to distinguish their logic unlike the theological approach and its principle of «given». Order as a key legal characteristic is revealed through bargaining power as the ability to obey established requirements. This theory for the first time reveals some inalienable legal meanings: the legal capacity of legal consciousness, mutual restraint, subjugation, generality.

Social contract theory enjoys a long history in moral and political philosophy. Since the European Enlightenment, social contract theory has become one of the most important traditions in moral and political philosophy. This chapter provides a brief introduction to central concepts in social contract theory and their development over time. Most importantly, the chapter clarifies some of the distinct features of new approaches to social contract theory (or “new social contract theory” for short) that have evolved in the twenty-first century and are most suitable for capturing the circumstances of contemporary societies. The chapter also provides an overview of the contributions to this book and their connections both methodologically and thematically.

Munoz-Dardé (2009) argues that a social contract theory must meet Rousseau's ‘liberty condition’: that, after the social contract, each ‘nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before’. She claims that Rousseau's social contract does not meet this condition, for reasons that suggest that no other social contract theory could. She concludes that political philosophy should turn away from social contract theory's preoccupation with authority and obedience, and focus instead on what she calls the ‘legitimacy’ of social arrangements. I raise questions about each of these claims.

The relationship between social contract theory and political and moral philosophy is complicated and interconnected. Political theory aims to understand the origins and legitimacy of political authority, whereas politico-moral philosophy investigates the ethical foundations and principles of political institutions. Despite the fact that these two concepts are unique, they frequently cross and impact one another. Social contract theory, popularized by thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, maintains that individuals engage into a social contract freely in order to build a political society. Individuals agree to give up some of their natural rights and freedoms to a ruling authority in exchange for protection, stability, and the preservation of their remaining rights, according to this view. The social compact is seen as the foundation of political legitimacy since it justifies the state's control over its citizens. In contrast, political-moral philosophy is concerned with the moral principles and ideals that guide political systems and institutions. It investigates issues of justice and fairness, as well as the rights and obligations of individuals in a political society. Moral philosophers such as John Rawls and Immanuel Kant produced theories aimed at establishing a just and ethical framework for political government. This paper focuses especially on the social contract theory of Rousseau and its relationship with politico-moral philosophy.

Feminists have long been aware of the pathology and the dangers of what are now termed “adaptive preferences.” Adaptive preferences are preferences formed in unconscious response to oppression. Thinkers from each wave of feminism continue to confront the problem of women's internalization of their own oppression, that is, the problem of women forming their preferences within the confining and deforming space that patriarchy provides. All preferences are, in fact, formed in response to a (more or less) limited set of options, but not all preferences are unconscious, pathological responses to oppression. Feminist theory therefore requires a method for distinguishing all preferences from adaptive or deformed preferences. Social contract theory provides such a tool. Social contract theory models autonomous preference‐acquisition and retention at both the external level of causation and the internal level of justification. In doing so, social contract theory exposes preferences that do not meet those standards, acting as both a conceptual test that identifies adaptive preferences and as a practical tool for personal and social clarification. A social contract approach helps persons and societies to identify and to confront preferences rooted in unconscious response to oppression.

Social contract theory argues that to properly execute thematic versions of the selection task one has to specify, in the rules of such versions, an explicit benefit that can only be achieved in exchange for meeting a requirement. By contrast, from the point of view deontic logic, it is sufficient that the rule is expressed in terms of a deontic rule. In this paper, I analyze an experiment presented by Cosmides, Barrett and Tooby with the goal of demonstrating that, for social contract theory, an explicit benefit is indeed necessary. My purpose is to check whether the outcomes of that experiment support the thesis of social contract theory and invalidate the assumptions of the approach of deonticlogic. I conclude that although the experiment by Cosmides, Barrett and Tooby does show that the idea of deontic logic is questionable, it does not really demonstrate that social contract theory is the correct one. Key words: adaptive algorithms, deontic logic, explicit benefit, selection task, social contract.

PurposeThis study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of social contract theory (SCT) utilization in cybersecurity literature, elucidating the current state of research, identifying major applications and themes and highlighting gaps, particularly in empirical studies, and the integration of emerging technologies. The study also maps the contractual parties and governance tools discussed in SCT and cyberspace interactions.Design/methodology/approachThis study uses a systematic literature review to investigate the application of SCT within the cybersecurity domain. Using a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative and qualitative content analysis with the Grounded Theory strategy, over 30,000 documents were initially screened. The final data set comprised 873 peer-reviewed papers from multiple databases. MAXQDA software facilitated coding and thematic analysis to identify key SCT applications, governance tools and research gaps.FindingsThe review revealed the following: emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain are sparsely researched within the SCT-cyberspace intersection, yet they offer solutions to various SCT-related issues; empirical studies are underrepresented, with theoretical explorations dominating the discourse; there is a notable gap in integrating emerging technologies such as AI within SCT frameworks; governance tools discussed are varied, including economic incentives, regulatory measures and informational strategies.Originality/valueThis study synthesizes SCT applications in cybersecurity, highlighting the interdisciplinary nature and potential for richer theoretical integration. By systematically mapping the literature, it identifies crucial gaps and offers a foundation for future empirical and theoretical research. The findings emphasize the importance of considering traditional SCT themes and contemporary technological contexts, contributing to the development of more robust frameworks for cyberspace governance.

Contracting for Catastrophe: Legitimizing Emergency Constitutions by Drawing on Social Contract Theory