Feminist philosophers such as Baier and Hero argue that the theory of social contract as an adequate representation of our moral or political obligations is flawed. The theory of the social contract generally goes so far as to define our rights and duties. But it may not be enough to adequately reveal the full extent of what it means to be a corporation and how to react completely to others with whom one interacts through dependency relationships. Baier argues that Gauthier, who considers the emotional bonds between people as non-negligible and voluntary, therefore does not represent the abundance of psychology and human motivations. It argues that this therefore leads to a decisive error in the theory of the social contract. Liberal moral theory is indeed parasitic for the relations between the thinkers from which it wants to free us. While Gauthier maintains that we are freer, all the more free since we can consider emotional relationships as voluntary, we must nevertheless find ourselves above all in such relationships (. B for example, the mother-child relationship) in order to develop exactly the skills and qualities that liberal theory will tout. Certain types of dependencies are above all necessary if we are to become exactly the types of people who can enter into contracts and agreements. Similarly, Hero argued that the «businessman» model is not very appreasant of what makes moral relationships meaningful between people. Understanding human relations under purely contractual conditions is, in their argument, «an impoverished vision of human aspiration» (194).
It therefore suggests that we examine other models of human relationships when we seek insight into morality. In particular, it proposes the paradigm of the mother-child relationship to at least complement with contracts the model of individual and selfish agents who negotiate among themselves. Rather, such a model is part of many of the moral experiences of most people, especially women. According to this argument, morality, politics, society and everything that goes with it, everything Hobbes calls «commodious living» are purely conventional. Before establishing the fundamental social contract, under which men agree to live together and embody the treaty of a sovereign with absolute authority, nothing is immoral or unjust – everything is fine. However, once these contracts are concluded, society becomes possible and people can be expected to keep their promises, work together, etc.