December 2, 2020
In the early platonic dialogue, Crito, Socrates, makes a convincing argument as to why he should remain in prison and accept the death penalty instead of fleeing and going into exile in another Greek city. He embodies the laws of Athens and explains through their voices that he has acquired an overwhelming obligation to respect the laws because they have made possible his whole way of life and even the fact of its existence. They allowed his mother and father to marry and have legitimate children, including themselves. The city of Athens, born by its laws, then demanded that its father provide him and extended it. The life of Socrates and how this life flourished in Athens depend on the law. However, it is important that this relationship between citizens and city laws is not forced. Citizens, once they have grown up and seen how the city behaves, can choose to leave, take away their belongings or stay. Staying involves an agreement to comply with the laws and accept the sentences they have taken. And after reaching a fair agreement, Socrates says that he must respect the agreement he has made and respect the laws, in this case by remaining and accepting the death penalty.
What is important is that the treaty described by Socrates is implicit: it is implied by his decision to remain in Athens, while he is free to leave. Moehlers (2017) The “multi-level” contract has several aspects. First, on the basis of their pluralistic moral obligations, individuals try to agree on social and moral rules that everyone can support as a common moral. This objective of this agreement is similar to that of the Darwalls, Gausundunden and Southwood models. The agreement of the second level is adapted to the circumstances in which pluralism is so profound and where it is not possible to forge a common morality. Instead of moral agents, the parties are rethought as instrumentally rational supervisors: the objective of this second level is to establish rules of cooperation that favour the interests of all when a deeper moral basis cannot be revealed. The lawyer Randy Barnett argued that while a company`s presence on the territory may be necessary for approval, it does not constitute the approval of all the rules that the company could adopt regardless of its content. A second condition of consent is that the rules be consistent with the fundamental principles of fairness and protection of natural and social rights and that they have procedures for the effective protection of those rights (or freedoms). This was also discussed by O. A. Brownson, who argued that, in a sense, these were three “Constitutions”: first, the constitution of nature, which encompasses everything the founders called the “natural right”; Second, the constitution of society, a set of unwritten and generally understood rules for society constituted by a social contract, before it creates a government by which it establishes the third, a government constitution. To accept, a necessary condition is that the rules be in accordance with the Constitution in that sense.
It is perhaps not surprising that the revival of contemporary contact theory took place at the same time as the tools of game theory and especially the theory of negotiation were applied to philosophical problems. Negotiation theory, as developed by John Nash (1950) and John Harsanyi (1977), is a rigorous approach to modelling how rational individuals would agree to share something good or surplus. In its most general form, the negotiating model of the agreement defines a number of people who have individual utility functions that can be represented in relation to others, without the need to directly compare the benefits between individuals.
© 2021 Zoe Tennesen . Creative Director | Theme by Eleven Themes