David Gauthier “neo-hobbesian” The theory holds that collaboration between two independent and selfish parties is indeed possible, especially when it comes to understanding morality and politics.  Gauthier stresses in particular the benefits of cooperation between two parties with regard to the challenge of the prisoner dilemma. It proposes that if two parties comply with the original agreement and the morals set out in the treaty, they should both achieve an optimal result.   In its social contract model, factors such as trust, rationality and self-interest act honestly and prevent it from breaking the rules.   The starting point of most social contract theories is the study of the politically unorthrly human condition (called the “natural state” by Thomas Hobbes).  In this state, the individual`s actions are related only to his personal power and conscience. From this common starting point, social contract theorists try to demonstrate why rational individuals would willingly agree to give up their natural freedom in order to obtain the benefits of political order. Hugo Grotius (1625), Thomas Hobbes (1651), Samuel von Pufendorf (1673), John Locke (1689), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) and Immanuel Kantuel (1797) are close to the concept of political authority. Grotius claimed that individuals had natural rights. As you know, Thomas Hobbes said that in a “state of nature,” human life would be “lonely, poor, wicked, brutal and short.” Without political order and law, every person would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the “right to everything” and thus the freedom to plunder, rape and murder; There would be an endless “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men unite to create, through a social contract, a political community (civil society) in which they obtain the security of all, in exchange for their submission to an absolute ruler, a man or an assembly of men.
Although the sovereign`s decrees were arbitrary and tyrannical, Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the dreaded anarchy of a natural state. Hobbes claimed that people agreed to abdicate their rights in favour of the absolute authority of the government (whether monarchical or parliamentary). Locke and Rousseau argued that in return, we get civil rights because they accept the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, by giving up certain freedoms to do so. Given the long-standing and widespread influence of the theory of the social contract, it is not surprising that it is also the subject of much criticism in many philosophical points of view. In particular, feminists and racial philosophers have made important arguments about the substance and viability of social contract theory. According to Hobbes, this mechanistic quality of human psychology implies the subjective nature of normative requirements.