Final answer:
The social contract theory of morality posits that individuals agree to a set of moral and political obligations in exchange for societal benefits. However, one argument against it is that not all individuals may have consented to this contract and thus may not recognize its legitimacy, especially if the state fails to protect citizens' rights or reflect the general will.
Step-by-step explanation:
The social contract theory of morality suggests that individuals are born into an unwritten agreement that states if we follow societal rules and laws, we can in turn enjoy the benefits provided by society, such as security, education, and other essentials needed to live. This theory maintains that by consenting to be governed, we essentially surrender some natural rights to the state, which is then responsible for protecting these rights.
One argument against the social contract theory is that it implies all individuals have willingly entered this contract, which is not always the case, especially for those who feel marginalized or oppressed by the state. Moreover, it raises the question of the legitimacy of state power if, for example, the state fails to protect the rights or serve the general will of the people, as argued by philosophers like Rousseau.
Moreover, social contract theory assumes a collective acceptance of moral and political obligations, which might not be uniformly agreed upon or fairly enforced across different segments of society. This becomes particularly contentious when discussing the balance between individual rights and the extent of state authority.