According to Filmer, political relations and commitments stem from historical and family relationships and customs. Locke attacked this argument directly in the first treaty of his two acts of government, published in 1689. In the second half of the text, Locke described an alternative to biblical cinematic representation of political legitimacy. Following Locke`s model and following the model of all social contract theorists, individuals are extracted from socio-historical constraints, filmmakers are emphasized and put into an artificial construction that is usually called the „state of nature“. From this point of view, the theory of the social contract claims the principle of consent instead of the Primogenitur as the basis of political legitimacy. The central assertion that the theory of the social contract is getting closer is that the law and the political order are not natural, but human creations. The social contract and the political order it creates are simply the means to achieve an end – the usefulness of the people concerned – and only to the extent that they are part of the agreement. Hobbes argued that the government was not a party to the original treaty and that citizens were not obliged to submit to the government if it was too weak to act effectively to suppress fractionism and civil unrest. According to other theorists of the social contract, if the government fails to safeguard its natural rights (Locke) or to satisfy the best interests of society (called „general will“ by Rousseau), citizens can withdraw their duty of respect or change of direction through elections or other means, including, if necessary, violence. Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, which is why God`s reign replaced the authority of government, while Rousseau believed that democracy (autocracy) was the best way to guarantee well-being while preserving individual freedom under the rule of law. The concept of a social contract was invoked in the U.S.

Declaration of Independence. The social theories of contracts were eclipsed in the 19th century in favour of utilitarianism, hegelianism and Marxism; they were revived in the 20th century, notably in the form of a thought experiment by John Rawls. [5] The social contract justifies our reasons for being favourable and respecting certain social rules or institutions. The theory depends on the assumptions adopted and the specification of the parameters. Just as Rousseau rejected the traditional theories of the social contract to later propose his own, contemporary philosophers such as Martha Nussbaum, Thomas Pogge and Charles Beitz also introduced a qualitatively different version of the international social contract, a version which they believe overcomes some of the problems of this treaty, as expressed by Rousseau, Kant and Rawls. [19] In 1972, the publication of John Rawls` influential philosophy of justice brought back a long pause in philosophical considerations. Rawls` theory is based on a Kantonic understanding of people and their abilities. For Rawls, as for Kant, people have the ability to think from a universal point of view, which means that they have the particular moral ability to judge principles from an impartial point of view. In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues that the moral and political point of view is discovered by impartiality.

(It is important to note that this view, described in A Theory of Justice, was extensively revised by Rawls and described his later view as „political liberalism.“) He invokes this point of view (the general point of view that Thomas Nagel describes as „the point of view of nothingness“) by imagining people in a hypothetical situation, the original position, characterized by the epistemical limitation of the veil of ignorance.