A well-founded contract must fulfil the full condition of publicity: its full justification must be able to be effectively accepted by members of a well-ordered society. The hypothetical agreement itself provides only what Rawls (1996, 386) calls a „pro tanto” or „as much as possible” justification for the principles of justice. „Full justification” is only achieved if „people support and become liberal justice for the particular (and often contradictory) reasons that are implicit in the full reasonable doctrines they retain” (Freeman 2007b, 19). Thus understood, rawls` concern for the stability of justice as equity, which motivated the transition to political liberalism, is itself a matter of justification (Weithman, 2010). Only if the principles of justice are stable in this way are they fully justified. However, Rawls` concern for stability and publicity is not unique and is shared by all contemporary contractual theorites. It is significant that even theorists like Buchanan (2000, 26-27), Gauthier (1986, 348) and Binmore (2005, 5-7) – who are so different from Rawls in other respects – share his concern for stability. Epicurus, in the fourth century BC, seemed to have had a strong sense of social contract, with justice and law rooted in mutual understanding and benefit, as evidenced, among other things, by these lines drawn from its main teachings (see also epicurean ethics): for Rawls, as with most contemporary theorists of the treaty, the goal of unification is not, at least directly, , the reason for political commitments. but the principles of justice that govern the fundamental institutions of society. Freeman (2007a: 23), perhaps Rawls` eminent student, focuses on „the social role of norms in public life.” Buchanan is busy justifying the constitutional orders of social and political institutions (2000 ).
Gauthier (1986), Scanlon (1998), Darwall (2006), Southwood (2010) and Gaus (2011a) use the contractual apparatus to justify socio-ethical claims. To explain the idea of the social contract, we analyze contractual approaches in five elements: (1) the role of the social contract (2) the parties (3) Convention (4) the purpose of the agreement (5) what the agreement must show. The theory of the social contract says that people live together in society in accordance with an agreement that establishes moral and political rules of conduct. Some people think that if we live according to a social contract, we can live morally according to our own choice and not because a divine being demands it. But these arguments were based on a corporatist theory of Roman law, according to which „a populus” can exist as an autonomous legal entity.