Introduction
One of the enduring questions in political philosophy concerns the foundations of a just society, particularly in an interconnected global context where actions of one nation can profoundly impact others. In the realm of ethics and societal organization, debates often center on whether justice arises from robust frameworks like social contracts or from balances between individual freedoms and collective restrictions. This essay explores prompt 3 from the course, arguing that the most important factor in creating a just society is the organizational framework, specifically the adherence to international agreements and social contracts that promote peace and mutual respect among nations. Drawing on philosophical readings from the course, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract and John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness, alongside external sources analyzing recent geopolitical tensions, I contend that violations of such frameworks lead to unjust conflicts, as exemplified by the ongoing war involving Iran, Israel, and the United States.
Background information reveals that modern societies often rely on international pacts to maintain stability, yet these are frequently undermined by unilateral actions driven by perceived threats. For instance, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) aimed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions in exchange for sanctions relief, embodying a contractual approach to global justice (Arms Control Association, 2026). However, withdrawals from such agreements have escalated tensions, transforming potential cooperation into conflict. In this paper, I argue that adhering to international agreements is paramount for a just society because it upholds the principles of mutual consent as outlined in social contract theory, prevents aggressive preventative wars, and mitigates harms to global stability, as demonstrated in the Iran-Israel-US war.
The Role of Social Contracts in Preventing Unjust Aggression
The foundational importance of organizational frameworks like social contracts cannot be overstated in building a just society, as they ensure that actions are based on collective agreement rather than individual or national self-interest. Rousseau, in The Social Contract, emphasizes that legitimate political authority derives from a pact where individuals surrender certain freedoms for the common good, creating a “general will” that protects all parties (Rousseau, 1762). This idea extends to international relations, where agreements like the JCPOA serve as global social contracts, fostering trust through verifiable commitments. Without such frameworks, societies risk descending into a state of nature, marked by perpetual conflict, as Rousseau warns: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” when arbitrary power prevails (Rousseau, 1762, p. 49).
Evidence from recent events supports this sub-thesis. The US withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, under the Trump administration, directly escalated tensions by removing a mechanism for monitoring Iran’s nuclear program, despite prior verifications confirming compliance (Arms Control Association, 2026). This act positioned the US as an aggressor, initiating a preventative war rather than responding to an imminent threat, as analyzed in reports on the conflict’s origins (ACLED, 2025). Analyzing this, the withdrawal not only breached the spirit of international consent but also undermined global justice by prioritizing perceived national security over collective stability. In Rawlsian terms, from Justice as Fairness, such actions violate the “original position” where rational agents would choose principles ensuring fairness without knowing their societal role (Rawls, 2001). Here, the US’s decision ignored the veil of ignorance, favoring power imbalances that disadvantage weaker nations like Iran. Therefore, this example illustrates how neglecting organizational frameworks leads to unjust wars, reinforcing the main thesis that adherence to agreements is essential for societal justice. Indeed, without these structures, nations engage in fallacious reasoning, assuming threats where none exist, which erodes the logical progression from peace to conflict resolution.
Balancing Freedom and Restriction Through Verifiable Pacts
A just society further requires a productive balance of freedom and restriction, achieved through international agreements that limit aggressive freedoms while protecting collective rights. John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, argues for the harm principle, where individual or national liberties should be curtailed only to prevent harm to others (Mill, 1859). This principle applies to global ethics, suggesting that unrestricted national actions, such as preventative strikes, infringe on others’ sovereignty and lead to widespread injustice. In the context of the Iran conflict, the US’s intervention, framed initially as humanitarian but shifting to preemptive defense, exemplifies an imbalance where one nation’s freedom to act unilaterally restricts others’ rights to self-determination.
Supporting evidence highlights the non-imminent nature of Iran’s threats, primarily directed at Israel rather than the US, as detailed in expert analyses (Arms Control Association, 2026). For example, Iran’s missile programs, while concerning, did not pose an immediate danger, yet the US’s escalation—without congressional or public approval—transformed the situation into a full-scale war (Feltman et al., 2026). This shift, from humanitarian motives to fear-based aggression, demonstrates the danger of unchecked freedoms, as Mill cautions against tyrannies of the majority or powerful states imposing their will (Mill, 1859, Chapter 1). Evaluating this, the conflict’s preventative nature positions the US as the aggressor, not defender, contradicting just war theories that require imminent threats for legitimacy. Furthermore, Rousseau’s social contract underscores that true justice emerges when restrictions are mutually agreed upon, not imposed, preventing the “chains” of domination (Rousseau, 1762). Thus, this body of evidence supports the thesis by showing how international pacts provide the necessary balance, and their violation, as in this war, results in unjust human and economic tolls, including civilian casualties and strained global economies (ACLED, 2025). Arguably, this imbalance highlights the limitations of unilateral freedoms in a interconnected world, where restrictions via agreements are vital for equity.
Accountability and the Human Toll in Unjust Conflicts
Finally, holding leaders accountable for breaching organizational frameworks is crucial for a just society, as it addresses the ethical implications of actions that prioritize self-interest over the common good. Drawing from W.E.B. Du Bois in Of the Ruling of Men, effective governance demands leaders who serve the public interest rather than personal or national gain, warning that self-serving rule perverts societal structures (Du Bois, 1920). In the Iran-Israel-US war, the Trump administration’s decisions, including the JCPOA withdrawal and subsequent strikes, exemplify this perversion, leading to unnecessary conflict without democratic oversight.
Key evidence from analyses reveals the war’s origins in policy shifts that ignored verified non-threats, resulting in significant human and economic costs (Feltman et al., 2026). For instance, the conflict has caused widespread displacement and economic disruption, with no clear justification beyond exaggerated fears (ACLED, 2025). This aligns with Rawls’ emphasis on fairness, where institutions must be arranged to benefit the least advantaged, yet here, Iranian civilians bear the brunt without proportionate gains for global justice (Rawls, 2001). Analyzing why this supports the thesis, accountability ensures that frameworks like social contracts are upheld, preventing leaders from engaging in fallacious appeals to security that mask aggression. Typically, in ethical deliberations, such accountability draws on utilitarian considerations from Mill, weighing overall harms against benefits, and in this case, the war’s toll far outweighs any preventive gains (Mill, 1859). Therefore, demanding accountability reinforces the organizational framework’s primacy, as unchecked leadership erodes societal justice, particularly in international arenas where power disparities amplify injustices.
Conclusion
In summary, this essay has argued that the most important factor in creating a just society is the organizational framework of international agreements, which upholds social contracts, balances freedoms with restrictions, and ensures accountability, as evidenced by the unjust Iran-Israel-US war. By examining Rousseau’s mutual consent, Mill’s harm principle, Rawls’ fairness, and Du Bois’ emphasis on selfless rule, alongside analyses of the conflict’s preventative nature and lack of imminent threats, the argument demonstrates how violations lead to aggression and harm.
Anticipating counterarguments, some might claim that national security justifies preventative actions, arguing that potential threats from Iran warrant intervention despite agreements. However, this view engages in slippery slope fallacies, assuming unverified risks as certainties, and overlooks evidence showing the JCPOA’s effectiveness in mitigating dangers (Arms Control Association, 2026). Moreover, such a stance contradicts the sound premises of just war theory, where validity requires actual, not hypothetical, harms. The presented evidence, including expert reports on non-imminent threats and the war’s human toll, sufficiently counters this by affirming that adherence to frameworks prevents escalation, promoting global justice over unilateral aggression. Ultimately, this matters for ethics and society, as fostering just frameworks ensures a world where peace, rather than conflict, defines human relations, urging policymakers to prioritize contractual integrity for the common good.
References
- ACLED (2025) Q&A: Twelve Days That Shook the Region: Inside the Iran-Israel War. ACLED.
- Arms Control Association (2026) Did Iran’s Nuclear and Missile Programs Pose an Imminent Threat? No. Arms Control Association.
- Du Bois, W.E.B. (1920) Of the Ruling of Men. In Darkwater: Voices from Within the Veil. Harcourt, Brace and Howe.
- Feltman, J. et al. (2026) After the Strike: The Danger of War in Iran. Brookings.
- Mill, J.S. (1859) On Liberty. John W. Parker and Son.
- Rawls, J. (2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Harvard University Press.
- Rousseau, J.-J. (1762) The Social Contract. Marc-Michel Rey.
