Agreement Social Contract

By September 10, 2021 No Comments

Michael Weisberg agrees that models as idealization techniques are more than abstract (2007a, 2013). Look at the periodic table of elements. It is an abstraction, but not a model in Weisberg. He calls abstractions like the periodic table abstract direct representations to distinguish them from models (2007b). Modeling attempts to isolate the important characteristics of the target phenomena so that the modeler can understand and manipulate important elements of the phenomena in the simulations. John Rawls` representatives of the initial position, for example, are not just abstractions of real people. These are idealizations that isolate certain aspects of people that are relevant to justification as a choice, especially their thin theory of rationality and their values (in the form of primary goods). The isolation of these characteristics is important for modeling the agreement procedure in Rawls theory. Although contractarians differ from individuals in their presentation of reasons, with some being attracted to more objectivist relationships (Scanlon 2013), most Hobbes follow the modeling of individual reasons as subjective, motivating internally or at least in agent relationship. This may be due to skepticism about moral reasons in general (Gauthier, 1986, Binmore 1998), a conviction of the overwhelming importance of personal interest in the social order (Hobbes 1651, Buchanan 2000 [1975], Brennan and Buchanan in 1985), a concern to take seriously the disagreement of individual vision in modern society, which implies differences in objectivity (Gaus 2016, 2011a; Muldoon 2017; Moehler 2014, 2015, forthcoming) or because this approach corresponds to the most advanced theories of rational choice in the social sciences (Binmore 2005, Buchanan 2000 [1975]).

In any case, individuals` reasons for accepting certain rules or principles, in particular their own reasons, are not “good reasons” from an impartial point of view. Of course, the same individuals may be concerned about what they perceive as the impartial good or another non-individualistic conception – they do not need to be selfish – but what is important to them, and so their reasons will be different. This point, as Rawls points out in his later work, is essential for understanding political justification in a diverse society where members of a society cannot reasonably be expected to have similar ideas about the good (Rawls 1996). The latest contractual relationships place even more emphasis on heterogeneity (Southwood 2010, Gaus 2016, Muldoon 2017, Moehler in preparation, Thrasher 2014b, Thrasher and Vallier 2015, Thrasher 2015). Samuel Freeman recently highlighted how the emphasis on the third perspective – the citizen in a well-ordered society – shows the importance of real convergence in Rawls` theory of contracts. According to Freeman`s interpretation, the social contract must fulfill the condition of the public. He (2007b:15) writes that the term “social contract” is increasingly used in the social science literature to describe sets of state-society relations, particularly with respect to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). .

. .