According to the story of the prisoner`s dilemma, two people were questioned separately about a crime they are suspected of having committed. The police have strong evidence of a less serious crime they committed, but they need a confession to sentence her to more serious charges. Each inmate is informed that if she cooperates with the police by informing the other inmate, she will be rewarded with a relatively light prison sentence of one year, while her cohort will go to prison for ten years. If they are both silent, then there will be no such rewards, and they can each face moderate penalties of two years. And if the two cooperate with the police by informing each other, the police will have enough to send them to prison for five years. The dilemma then is this: in order to best serve her own interests, each prisoner argues that no matter what the other does, she should cooperate better with the police by confessing. All the reasons: «If she confesses, then I should confess and be sentenced to five years instead of ten years. And if she doesn`t confess, then I should confess and be sentenced to one year instead of two. So no matter what she does, I should admit it. The problem is that if all the reasons are like this, everyone confesses, and everyone goes to jail for five years. However, if they had all remained silent and cooperated with each other and not with the police, they would have spent only two years in prison.
Social contracts can be explicit, like laws, or implicit, like raising your hand in class to speak. The U.S. Constitution is often cited as an explicit example of part of the American social contract. It determines what the government can and cannot do. People who choose to live in America accept to be governed by the moral and political obligations set forth in the social contract of the Constitution. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1712-1778, lived and wrote during arguably the most exhilarating period in the intellectual history of modern France – the Enlightenment. He was one of the bright lights of this intellectual movement, contributing to articles to Diderot`s Encyclopedia and participating in the Paris Salons, where the great intellectual questions of his time were pursued. The consensus phase involves negotiations and compromises towards a single set of principles. By consensus, I mean broad or general agreement, not necessarily unanimity. In particular, a consensus should include more than two-thirds or even three-quarters of those who vote (some may prefer to get out of haggling and vote for personal reasons. B for example because of the desire to leave these questions to others, or the desire to stay on Earth, no matter what the New Society would look like). Only a very small but unspecified number would likely contradict the consensus principles established at this stage.
The first modern philosopher to articulate a detailed theory of contracts was Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). According to Hobbes, the life of individuals in the state of nature was «lonely, poor, evil, brutal and short,» a state in which self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented the «social» or society. Life was «anarchic» (without leadership or concept of sovereignty). Individuals in their natural state were apolitical and antisocial. This state of nature is followed by the social contract. At the national level, the theory of the social contract is perhaps the most subject to criticism regarding the question of origin. Since no living person has ever experienced an initial situation such as the state of nature or the original position, there is good reason to be skeptical about the state of nature as a literal representation of the origin of sovereign power. This objection, associated in particular with David Hume, asserts that the initial situation of the social contract theory can only reasonably be cited as a hypothetical situation, as a thought experiment that establishes a context in which the parties to an agreement are most likely to act rationally or reasonably.  In this sense, Hegel characterized the social contract as following the principle (pure thought) that distinguished it from the historical conditions under which the state and its laws developed.
The creation of a state that Hegel defended has nothing to do with philosophy.  Quentin Skinner argued that several critical modern innovations in contract theory can be found in the writings of French Calvinists and Huguenots, whose work was in turn used by writers in the Netherlands who opposed their submission to Spain, and later by Catholics in England.  Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) of the Salamanca School could be considered an early theorist of the social contract who theorized natural law to restrict the divine right of absolute monarchy. All these groups were led to articulate notions of popular sovereignty through a social alliance or contract, and all these arguments began with proto-«state of nature» arguments, arguing that the basis of politics is that everyone is inherently free to submit to any government. At the simplest level, models take something complex and make it easier. In this sense, economist Ariel Rubinstein (2012) and philosopher Nancy Cartwright (1991) compare models to fables. Fables are stories that teach an important lesson in a simple and easy-to-understand way. Fables, like models, convey important general rules through specific, albeit fictitious, cases. Given the long-standing and widespread influence that the theory of social contracts has had, it is not surprising that it is also the subject of much criticism from various philosophical perspectives. Feminists and race-conscious philosophers in particular have advanced important arguments about the substance and feasibility of social contract theory.
The social contract models our reasons for supporting and adhering to a set of social rules or institutions. How the theory does this depends on the assumptions made and the specification of the parameters. Carole Pateman`s 1988 book, The Sexual Contract, argues that beneath the myth of the idealized contract, as described by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, lies a more fundamental contract on male-female relationships. Contract theory presents itself as opposed to patriarchy and patriarchal law. (Locke`s social contract, for example, is established by him in stark contrast to the work of Robert Filmer, who advocated for patriarchal power.) But the «original pact» (2), which precedes the social contract between equals, is the agreement of men to dominate and control women. This «original pact» is made by brothers, literally or metaphorically, who, after overthrowing the reign of the father, then agree to share their domination over women who were previously under the exclusive control of a man, the father. .