Answer:
The statement "Social contract theory is the idea that the state should have a written document that sets up rules for its citizens, like the constitution" is False because Social contract theory emphasizes the collective agreement among individuals for mutual benefit, but it does not mandate a specific requirement for a written constitution.
Step-by-step explanation:
Social contract theory is not specifically about whether the state should have a written document like a constitution. Instead, it's a political and moral theory that suggests individuals come together to form a society and agree to abide by certain rules for mutual benefit. The idea is often associated with philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
While a written constitution can be a tool to codify these agreed-upon rules, the core concept of the social contract is broader and encompasses the implicit or explicit agreements that bind individuals within a society.
Firstly, Thomas Hobbes, in his work "Leviathan," argued for a social contract to avoid the "state of nature," which he envisioned as a chaotic and brutish existence. However, Hobbes didn't specifically advocate for a written constitution.
John Locke, on the other hand, emphasized natural rights and the consent of the governed but didn't necessarily insist on a written document. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract" explored the idea of a general will guiding governance, but again, a written constitution wasn't the central focus.
In summary, while a written constitution can be a manifestation of the social contract, the broader concept is about the collective agreement among individuals to form a society and abide by certain rules for the common good.