Such a view therefore raises the objection that there is a need for rehabilitation or accommodation that goes beyond a possible future contribution expected for a particular disabled person. And people with disabilities are not able to identify a threat to the destabilization of society, which is why the motivation to join them must be the expected usefulness. If you rely only on ideas of mutual benefit and reciprocity, these people – the “runaways” – would continue to stay outside the Treaty and languish below an acceptable level of functioning that they could rightly assert in the light of another moral theory. According to some, the awarding of the contract should not be essentially contradictory (Francis – Silvers 2005). Since the best way to obtain the benefits of mutual agreement is to “promote stable respect for mutual expectations” (Francis – Silvers 2005, 60), the essential element of the treaty is the development of trust, and the deeper and more diffuse the trust, the less the costs of executing contracting. Considering the importance of building trust, the disabled are therefore also able to contribute to this climate, perhaps even more so because of their greater vulnerability than capable bodies. This means that people with disabilities who rely on others may decide to put aside fears of betrayal or neglect and remain positive and proactive, thereby achieving a positive emotional climate in themselves and their caregivers. This emotional work of trust becomes his contribution to the well-being of society. It is therefore by emphasizing the motivation of cooperation for mutual benefit and not on the fear of defamation of others that one comes into play with a more inclusive and positive political theory. This view depends on the assumption (similar to Gauthier`s) that our moral psychology is such that once we develop our will to work together, we lose the will to cheat or harm other agreements to satisfy our direct interest. As has already been said, this assumption has often been challenged by critics of the treaty. In contemporary normative theories, i.e. theories that attempt to understand the legitimacy of governments, or theories that purport to deduce a moral requirement, the starting position is the starting point of a fair and impartial agreement.
While the parties justify the requirement for a fair and impartial agreement for non-contractual reasons, the contracting parties are convinced that the success of the contract in ensuring cooperative interaction requires that the starting point and procedures be fair and impartial. Social contract theories also require some rules to guide the formation of agreements. Since they are before the treaty, there must be a source of previous moral standards, whether natural, rational or conventional. The first rule that is normally imposed is that there should be no violence or fraud in the context of contracting. No one should be “constrained” by the threat of physical violence. The reason for this is very simple in terms of surveillance: if violence can be used, there is no real difference between the “treaty” and the state of the species for the threatened party, and therefore no security in the agreement.