Feminist philosophers such as Baier and Hero argue that the theory of social contract as an adequate representation of our moral or political obligations is flawed. The theory of the social contract generally goes so far as to define our rights and duties. But it may not be enough to adequately reveal the full extent of what it means to be a corporation and how to react completely to others with whom one interacts through dependency relationships. Baier argues that Gauthier, who considers the emotional bonds between people as non-negligible and voluntary, therefore does not represent the abundance of psychology and human motivations. It argues that this therefore leads to a decisive error in the theory of the social contract. Liberal moral theory is indeed parasitic for the relations between the thinkers from which it wants to free us. While Gauthier maintains that we are freer, all the more free since we can consider emotional relationships as voluntary, we must nevertheless find ourselves above all in such relationships (. B for example, the mother-child relationship) in order to develop exactly the skills and qualities that liberal theory will tout. Certain types of dependencies are above all necessary if we are to become exactly the types of people who can enter into contracts and agreements. Similarly, Hero argued that the “businessman” model is not very appreasant of what makes moral relationships meaningful between people. Understanding human relations under purely contractual conditions is, in their argument, “an impoverished vision of human aspiration” (194).
It therefore suggests that we examine other models of human relationships when we seek insight into morality. In particular, it proposes the paradigm of the mother-child relationship to at least complement with contracts the model of individual and selfish agents who negotiate among themselves. Rather, such a model is part of many of the moral experiences of most people, especially women. The theory of the social contract, almost as old as philosophy itself, considers that people`s moral and/or political obligations depend on a contract or agreement between them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses some kind of social contract argument to explain to Crito why he should stay in prison and accept the death penalty. However, the theory of the social contract is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and, for the first time, it is fully presented and defended by Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best-known supporters of this extremely influential theory which, in the history of the modern West, was one of the most dominant theories of moral and political theory. In the 20th century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum thanks to John Rawls` Cantian version of the theory of the social contract, followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others. More recently, philosophers have made new criticisms of the theory of social contract from different angles. In particular, feminists and racial philosophers have argued that the theory of the social contract is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political life and may in fact mask some of the possibilities in which the treaty itself is parasitic on the subjugation of classes of people.
The idea of the social contract goes back at least to Epicurus (Thrasher 2013). In its visibly modern form, however, the idea was revived by Thomas Hobbes; It was developed in different ways by John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Emmanuel Kant.