The Social Contract Theory Suggests That W

The Social Contract Theory Suggests That W

Answer one of the following: The Social Contract theory suggests that we need rules and laws, and as a participant in our society we agree to abide by these rules. What do we do about rules and laws to which we disagree? Let’s take “pot legalization” for the topic. Some states allow and some states do not, so what do you do if you disagree with the laws of your state under this theory? Think of World Health and the Allocation of Health Care. How should Health Care be allocated? Do all human beings have a claim and right to proper Health Care? How should we pay for Health Care systems? How should Health conditions that threaten large segments of the World’s populations be handled? Social Contract theory is an important and respected approach in moral philosophy. But it's not flawless. Compare Hobbes' version with John Locke's. (They are considerably different!) One problem with accepting this theory is the treatment of those who are not parties to the Social Contract. Why should we take them into consideration, if they're not obliged to take us into consideration? For example, what if they are unable to "consent" due to intellectual limitations, like mentally disabled people and non-human animals? This problem extends to people who are not yet born. What do we owe them--given that they (not here yet) don't "owe" us anything in return? This issue is not merely abstract. The impact of global climate change puts our obligations to future generations at the top of the news. Do we have a moral obligation to future generations? Do you think we are obliged to make decisions about our own lifestyles based on concerns about future generations? If so, why? If not, why not? Explain your reasoning.

Paper For Above instruction

The social contract theory has been foundational in moral philosophy, emphasizing that individuals consent, either explicitly or implicitly, to abide by societal rules for mutual benefit. This perspective informs our understanding of laws, rights, and moral obligations within society, raising critical questions about disobedience, justice, and responsibility, especially when laws conflict with personal beliefs or moral principles.

Regarding laws to which individuals disapprove, social contract theory suggests that citizens have a moral obligation to follow them as part of their agreement with society. However, when laws diverge sharply from personal moral convictions, such as in the debate over pot legalization, individuals face moral dilemmas. For instance, in states where cannabis is illegal, individuals who believe in its medicinal or recreational benefits confront the question: should they obey such laws or challenge them? According to Locke's conception of the social contract, individuals retain natural rights to life, liberty, and property, which may justify civil disobedience if laws infringe upon these rights unjustly. Conversely, Hobbes contended that obedience to laws is necessary to prevent chaos and ensure societal stability, emphasizing the importance of order over individual moral judgments.

Expanding this framework to global issues such as health care, the question emerges: how should health care be allocated fairly and ethically? Fundamental to social justice is the belief that all human beings possess an intrinsic claim to health and well-being. This aligns with Locke’s view that individuals have rights to life and health, suggesting that access to proper health care is a moral obligation of society. Universal health coverage, therefore, should be viewed as a moral right, not merely a privilege for the wealthy.

Funding health care systems remains a challenging question. Many ethical frameworks advocate for a system financed through progressive taxation, ensuring that resources are redistributed to support those most in need. Such a system respects the moral claim that health care should be accessible to all, regardless of socioeconomic status. Internationally, the treatment of health threats that impact large populations—such as pandemics or climate-induced health crises—requires coordinated global responses. Developed nations have moral obligations to assist less developed countries, recognizing our shared humanity and interconnectedness.

However, the social contract theory faces criticisms when considering individuals who are not parties to the contract, such as non-human animals, mentally disabled persons, or future generations. These groups cannot consent or participate in societal agreements yet are profoundly affected by human actions. For example, climate change poses a dire threat to future generations, raising ethical questions: do present generations owe moral obligations to those not yet born? Many ethicists argue that we do, grounded in principles of intergenerational justice. We have a duty to preserve the environment and ensure sustainable development to prevent catastrophic consequences for those who come after us.

Furthermore, the question of our moral obligation to future generations extends to lifestyle choices. Decisions related to consumption, energy use, and environmental impact directly influence the well-being of those yet to be born. The moral reasoning here aligns with Kantian ethics and utilitarian perspectives, emphasizing our responsibility to maximize overall well-being and minimize harm across generations. Neglecting these responsibilities could lead to catastrophic environmental degradation, threatening the survival and quality of life for future persons.

Critics may argue that intergenerational obligations are speculative or that current needs should take precedence. Nonetheless, the reality of climate change indicates that neglecting long-term consequences jeopardizes the very foundations of society. Ethically, adopting a precautionary approach—acting to safeguard future interests—reflects a deep commitment to justice beyond immediate interests.

In conclusion, social contract theory provides a valuable framework for understanding moral obligations within society and beyond. While it offers insights into law, rights, and responsibilities, its limitations become apparent when addressing groups incapable of consent or those yet to be born. Recognizing our moral duties to future generations and other vulnerable groups necessitates expanding the scope of the social contract to encompass broader ethical considerations. By doing so, we foster a more just and sustainable society that respects the dignity and rights of all affected, present and future.

References

• Gauthier, D. (1986). Morals by Agreement. Oxford University Press.
• Locke, J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government. Awnsham Churchill.
• Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Andrew Crooke.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Singer, P. (1972). Animal Liberation. Random House.
• Caney, S. (2014). Justice for Future Generations. Oxford University Press.
• Gardiner, S. (2006). A Perfect Moral Storm. Oxford University Press.
• Parfit, D. (1987). Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.
• Nässä, A. (2020). Environmental Ethics and Climate Change. Routledge.
• Shue, H. (1980). Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Princeton University Press.