While the call for a negotiated solution may determine a social contract, this is done at the cost of a controversial admission mechanism in the event of axiomatic negotiations or a transition to procedural approaches that must ultimately be based on the empirical result of social and biological evolution. Although the importance of negotiations in the social contract has been atrophied for some time, the latest work is changing (see Alexander 2007, Thrasher 2014a, Thoma 2015, Muldoon 2017, Moehler comes, Vanderschraaf comes). However, it is possible that Determinate actually requires diversity from the perspective of the advisory parties in a way that Rawls and others like Harsanyi had not anticipated. The reason is simple, even if the evidence is a little complex. The normalization of the parties` perspectives assumes that there is a stable position, with all the relevant information necessary to create a set of stable and specific social rules. But there is no reason to believe that such a prospect can be found. Instead, there are good reasons to prefer a diversified rather than standardized idealization of the contracting parties if we recognize that there are epistemal gains from a “cognitive labour division” (see Weisberg and Muldoon in 2009, Gaus 2016, Muldoon 2017, Muldoon in brief). There are reasons to conclude that if we want to discover social treaties that best achieve a certain number of normative desiderata (. B for example, freedom, equality, well-being, etc.), a deliberative process based on a diversity of perspectives will go beyond a process based on strict standardization of perspectives (Gaus 2011b, 2016). The starting point of most theories of societal contracts is a study of the human condition without a political order (described by Thomas Hobbes as the “natural state”).
 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.