Category: Social Contract Theory

“The idea of the social contract goes back at least to Epicurus. In its recognizably modern form, however, the idea is revived by Thomas Hobbes; it was developed in different ways by John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant. After Kant, the idea largely fell into disrepute until it was resurrected by John Rawls. It is now at the heart of the work of a number of moral and political philosophers. The basic idea seems simple: in some way, the agreement of all individuals subject to collectively enforced social arrangements shows that those arrangements have some normative property and they are legitimate, just, obligating, etc. Even this basic idea, though, is anything but simple, and even this abstract rendering is objectionable in numerous ways (Skyrms).”

“Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others. More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory.”

“Social Contract theory is the idea that people gain benefit from living together and abiding by rules and laws that would be set forth by rational people. Social contract theory gained notice when Thomas Hobbes wrote about it in response to the English Civil War. He asserted that there was no right and wrong, that each person took everything they could, not caring for their fellow man. Life was nasty, short and brutish. According to Hobbes, this could be improved if people were willing to give up their liberty to a sovereign power, which would have absolute power and in return could offer them protection (Shaapera).”

“This theory also states that we all need the same basic things to survive, food, water, shelter and clothing. One person alone does not possess the ability to have these things easily and for certain, so we can work together to provide all of these things for everyone as long as there is a contract of sorts in place to ensure that everyone can live peacefully and without fear. John Locke however argued that a person’s right to life and property were natural and therefore, the social contract would need to be conditional, providing obedience only as long as there was protection for life and property and should the sovereign leader fail in this, he should be overthrown.”

“French born philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau stated that people were unwarlike and underdeveloped in their moral reasoning, so when people gave up their liberties and freedoms in exchange for protection, they would feel a sense of moral obligation. He stated that this meant that, in order to keep this sense of moral obligation the government must rest on the consent of the governed. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau made very good points, and all were theories needed for others to take and shape into a good social contract for others to abide by and flourish under (Shaapera).”

“Social contract is an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects. The historical origins of sovereign power and the moral origins of the principles make sovereign power just and/or legitimate. It is often associated with the liberal tradition in political theory, because it presupposes the fundamental freedom and equality of all those entering into a political arrangement and the associated rights that follow from the principles of basic freedom and equality. From that starting point, often conceptualized via the metaphor of a state of nature, social contract theory develops an account of political legitimacy, grounded in the idea that naturally free and equal human beings have no right to exercise power over one another, except in accordance with the principle of mutual consent.”

“Social contract theory has its disadvantages. For one, it implies that everyone should be capable of abiding by this contract, but what about the mentally ill? Should we have no moral obligation to treat them well because they are not able to abide properly by the terms of the contract? It also leaves very little room to decide whether or not civil disobedience is justified. For me, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. It gives us a moral compass to guide our actions appropriately and helps us to determine the difference between right and wrong. It tells us what rules to follow and why those rules are needed. It tells us the circumstances under which we are able to break certain rules. Problems with the social contract theory include the following: It gives government too much power to make laws under the guise of protecting the public. Specifically, governments may use the cloak of the social contract to invoke the fear of a state of nature to warrant laws that are intrusive.”

“One example of pros of social contact theory is when a government takes away simple freedom to protect its citizens. Some people say that the full body scan at airports are a personal violating and are not legal. Now I say it is legal and ok, if the government using full body scanners protects me from being killed on a plane by someone then I’m ok with it. But on the other hand the con to it is that you are losing your own personal freedoms at the expense of others. Now some might say this is wrong but it does save lives. Thomas Hobbs was best known for his political thoughts, and deservedly so. He had a vision of the world that was surprisingly accurate and is still relevant to this day. He was mainly concerned with the problem of social and political power. He wanted all human beings to live together in peace, and to avoid the danger and fear of conflict. They thought that we should give our undivided obedience to an unaccountable sovereign. Another powerful political thinker on social contract theory is John Locke. He was a very influential political philosopher of the modern period. Locke claimed that men are born naturally free. Locke also believes in the separation of separation of legislative and executive powers. John Locke’s version of social contract theory is striking in saying that the only right people give up in order to enter into civil society and its benefits is the right to punish other people for violating rights (Shaapera). No other rights are given up, only the right to be a vigilante.”

“Social contract theory tries to explain the beginning of men when people lived in the state of nature without the government or any law that could govern them. However, there was a lot of hardship and various forms of oppression, which forced society to enter into two forms of contracts known as Pactum Unionis and Pactum Subjections. Therefore, the focus of this task is to describe the main similarities and difference between three forms of social contract theory, the main contributions of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau in the theory Social contract theory exists in different forms, which include the sexual contract, nature of the liberal individual, and Arguing from care. The sexual contract is argued that it is one lying beneath the myth of the idealized contract, as described by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. It is one of the fundamental contracts that bring a great concern between the relationship between men and women (Laskar).”

“Social contract theory says that people live together in society in accordance with an agreement that establishes moral and political rules of behavior. Some people believe that if we live according to a social contract, we can live morally by our own choice and not because a divine being requires it. Over the centuries, philosophers as far back as Socrates have tried to describe the ideal social contract, and to explain how existing social contracts have evolved. Philosopher Stuart Rachels suggests that morality is the set of rules governing behavior that rational people accept, on the condition that others accept them too (Kimmel, et al.).”

“Social contracts can be explicit, such as laws, or implicit, such as raising one’s hand in class to speak. The U.S. Constitution is often cited as an explicit example of part of America’s social contract. It sets out what the government can and cannot do. People who choose to live in America agree to be governed by the moral and political obligations outlined in the Constitution’s social contract. Indeed, regardless of whether social contracts are explicit or implicit, they provide a valuable framework for harmony in society.”

Works Cited

1. ‘Social Contract Theory’. Csus.Edu, https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/sct.htm.
2. Kimmel, Allan J., N. Craig Smith, and Jill Gabrielle Klein. ‘Ethical decision making and research deception in the behavioral sciences: An application of social contract theory.’ Ethics & Behavior 21.3 (2011): 222-251.
3. Laskar, Manzoor. ‘Summary of social contract theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.’ Locke and Rousseau (April 4, 2013) (2013).
4. Shaapera, Simon Aondohemba. ‘Evaluating the social contract theoretical ideas of Jean Jacques Rousseau: An analytical perspective on the state and relevance to contemporary society.’ (2015).
5. Skyrms, Brian. Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

What is Social contract theory?

Social contract theory defines itself as economy is based on capitalism. This concept suggest that the economy is based on contract, society and government is also based on contract. This theory was popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. Many philosopher such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau explained the meaning the origin of government and obligations of the subjects.

When we talk about social contract theory we instantly think about Thomas Hobbes, but in reality Machiavelli define state and citizenship. The concept of social contract theory deals with how slowly new systems evolved, how people created laws of citizenship, and how new definition were presented. In his initial times Machiavelli explained what citizenship is, and who should be considered citizens. Although Plato and Aristotle also talked about citizenship but Machiavelli thought or explanation was entirely different, the situation of living before the formation of state was natural condition, when people used to live in forest. he explained that in very beginning people used to live in anarchy, they were hunters and gatherers, In those condition there were no form of security.

To overcome these situations people started building up state and when state evolved, then new systems slowly arrived. One of big contribution came from Thomas Hobbes; Hobbes for the first time used the term ‘Social contract’.

Thomas Hobbes said that people agreed on some kind of ‘contract to come out from situations like anarchy, that contract was social contract. Hobbes further explained that contract was held between Peoples natural rights and state (sovereign god).

Thomas Hobbes talked about natural rights & natural laws:-

1. Natural Rights – these are those rights which get by birth, for example right to life.
2. Natural Laws – Right which we create through our intellectual capacity.

According to Hobbes, state is supreme power. Also state should haves powers to capture individual citizens life, land & property if required, as he believes life and property meant to safeguard state itself.

After Hobbes, John Locke contributed in social contract theory, Locke criticise Thomas Hobbes and Robert Filmer in his book ‘The two treaties on civil government’. He was contemporary of Hobbes, it is said that he wanted to challenge Hobbes theory of absolute state. However Hobbes works become controversial and prohibited by the church, hence he targeted the theory of absolute state given by Filmer in this book “Patriarcha”.

Locke first time evolved the term ‘liberal’ that means “A free man”, Locke said state can’t take life of an individual neither can take their property, thus he contradicted Hobbes theory of giving state an absolute power.

Here Locke gives some rights to the citizen, which is :-

1. Right to property
2. Right to life
3. Right to freedom

Among these he used to considered right to freedom most important.

At last Jean Jacques Rousseau came up with his ideas on social contract theory, Rousseau is known as father of French revolution. The greatest contribution of Rousseau is the theory of ‘General Will’ or ‘Popular Sovereignty ‘.General Will is the collective interest of all the individuals living in a society, it talks about what is good for the society as whole.

His theory was different from Locke, as Rousseau found some improvement in Locke concept of giving absolute freedom to an individual. Later Rousseau prefunded democracy with a purpose of formation of positive form of government and the contract made between the people and the government could able to remain intact.

Is social contract theory applicable in today’s world?

When we look at societies and its social structure, we can clearly see the influence of social contract theory in contemporary era. These theories helped in development of society and its people also because of different thoughts and concepts presented by Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau we get to know the ideas of equality, freedom, liberty, sovereignty and democracy.

Social contract theory was the foundation on which today’s form of government evolved. Many of its concepts and ideology is still practised and exercised in the larger parts of world.

But when we talk about today’s world social contract theory is not entirely relevant in present scenario. Thomas Hobbes theory suggest that state should have complete powers and state can take life and property of an individual but state is made by people to serve their interests also it completely contradicts his own theory of natural rights. Thus state can’t take life and property of its citizens which was rightly explained further by John Locke but his concept was again contradicted by great philosopher and thinker Rousseau, as Locke talks about giving absolute freedom to an individual, which is not possible as there should be some rules and regulation in the form of laws and ethics, which according to Rousseau comes under ‘General Will’ that is the collective interest of all the individuals living in a society, but when we consider ‘general will’ as correct form of moving a government then we are talking about majoritarian form of government which only works for the will of majority.

This form of governance also reflects in current times, were government considers thoughts and ideology of citizens who are in majority and completely ignoring the will of citizens in minority. These minorities can be in form of religion, gender, culture and ethnicity.

When we talk about 21st century India we can find various cases to support this argument, these are recent LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning) earlier supreme court of India criminalised these communities completely smashing their rights, feelings and freedom of living. Later they got decriminalised but the concept was the same as, why they got criminalised at first place was due to majority community was not ready to accept them.

Similarly we can witness such kind of thinks in other democratic institution where ideology of majority wins, thus it does not considers “Every ones will” and their aspirations.

Also, social contract theory was the base on which present form of government evolved, thus these theory is not entirely applicable to the contemporary era, as we are suppose to further evolve to form a state which more precisely considers every individuals thought process and ideas rather than generalising their intellectual thinking.

Compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of classicism with one other theoretical perspective that you have encountered in Block 1, and critically evaluate which perspective is most useful in considering issues of crime and justice.

The ideas of modern ‘justice’ have at their core two concepts, around which have shaped the way Western liberal democracies have constructed the legal relationship between the ‘people’ and ‘state’. Those two concepts are Classicism and Positivism. This essay will compare and contrast the two perspectives and evaluate which is the most useful regarding the contemporary issues of ‘crime and justice’. To do this it will look at the classical perspective, putting it into context; centring on Thomas Hobbs ‘social contract theory’, and using the work of Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria to outline the core beliefs of Classicism. The essay will then use the Positivistic perspective, using the work of Adolphe Quetelet to highlight the ‘individualism’ that separates the two perspectives. The ‘biological’ ideas of Cesare Lombroso will be looked at to show the link between classicism and positivism.

The Enlightenment of the 17th Century challenged the thinking about law and ’justice’. That new way of thinking was the ‘classical’ ideas of justice or ‘classicism’. Thomas Hobbes, in his seminal work Leviathan (1660) argued that violence is central to human interaction and must be controlled. For Hobbes ‘violence’ was core to his ideas about the creation of a civic society or ‘State’. Hobbes (1660) argued that in the ‘state of nature’ man has a natural right to defend himself to live; even using violence to kill others. Essentially, there is no moral imperative or responsibility to respect others life or property. However, Hobbes argued, though it is a ‘natural right’ in the ‘state of nature’ for man to be free to live how he thinks best, it is not the best way to live and survive. Hobbes’ solution was to create a ‘Common-wealth’ or State with order being ‘imposed’ by a ‘Leviathan’ or sovereign: a person or assembly given executive power over the people.

Hobbs had developed ‘social contract theory’ – the term was coined by Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract (1762) (McCulloch, Phoenix and Copson, 2019). Social contract theory attempted to put into context the ideas of justice within society, a triumvirate of the State, Law and Citizen; that a ‘contract’ existed between the Sovereign and the People. The main strength in the ideas of Hobbs and others, like Cesare Beccaria in his On Crimes and Punishments (1764) and Jeremy Bentham (1995 [1791]) on penal reform, was to create a ‘framework’, for the concept of ‘the rule of law’.

Classicism had within it a set of core beliefs about the ‘nature’ of man: that criminality was essentially part of the human condition and that people have ‘free will’, that is they make ‘rational’ decisions whether to commit crime or not; and, importantly, that they are ‘hedonistic’ and seek happiness and pleasure (Beccaria, 1963 [1764]; McCulloch, Phoenix and Copson, 2019). In dealing with crime and punishment the classical theory believes that justice should be ‘neutral’ and seen to be fair and should apply to all; that the punishment should fit the crime; also, that the punishment should not be excessive; and that punishment must act as a deterrent – that crime should be a zero sum game. However, the classical view of punishment was that it should be ‘utilitarian’ in its effect, which is arguably one of the weaknesses with classicism; in that the utilitarian philosophy of ‘the greater good’ – though laudable in many ways – defeats the very idea of ‘justice’ (in a contemporary sense) because it removes the ‘individual’ from the process.

However, importantly, central to social contract theory was that of ‘consent’, that the people must freely give consent to be governed and importantly ‘punished’ (Hobbs, 1660; McCulloch, Phoenix and Copson, 2019). The idea of ‘consent’ and consenting to be ‘punished’ are weaknesses within the classical theory of justice: that those giving consent should be able to influence the ‘law makers’ – or Leviathan. The socio-economic stratification of society in 18th Century Britain meant that only the ‘elites’ had access to Parliament and Law, and therefore able to question consent. Moreover, the above raises arguably Classicism’s main weakness, that of ‘equality’. The application of ‘law’ may be equitable, as in ‘everyone’ is subject to the same law. Nevertheless, that does not mean the ‘justice’ is applied equally – in the modern sense – at a time when society was anything but equal. Laws cannot be equally applied in an unequal society if justice is to be done; for example, if a well-fed man steals bread as opposed to a starving man stealing bread. Essentially, classicism lacked the concept of ‘mitigation’. Moreover, what the above has shown was that classicism had no concept of the ‘individual’; however, that was going to change with theories of Positivists thinkers who would bring into focus the idea of the ‘individual’.

By the 19th Century, thinkers like Charles Darwin, and Positivist thinkers like Emile Durkheim and Adolphe Quetelet who will identify and attempt to address the perceived problems with classicism, were beginning to influence the ideas on crime and justice. Key to understanding the positivist viewpoint is that of the ‘individual’; that is, unlike the classical theory, which sees criminality as an innate part of the human condition, positivism argues that the person and their circumstances need to be considered and examined.

Therefore, whereas classicism was essentially moralistic – having Christian core values – positivism was essentially Darwinian, looking at mankind as a ‘natural’ biological phenomenon as opposed to religious dogma which saw mankind as divinely inspired. That difference is fundamental to the positions both theories take on crime and punishment. The sociological positivist view was that people were not innately ‘rational’ in their behaviour and choices as argued by classicism, but were subject to circumstance, for example the work of Adolphe Quetelet who looked at demographic, socio-economic and environmental data from 19th Century France, established a correlation between the above and crime rates (McCulloch, Phoenix and Copson, 2019). The positivist ideas on ‘punishment’ were at odds with the classical thinkers. Whereas, the classical idea of punishment, like that of Jeremy Bentham (1995 [1791]) and his ‘Panopticon,’ were about that ‘the punishment should fit the crime’; essentially retribution and deterrence. The positivistic view was about ‘rehabilitation’; turning the classical view on its head arguing that ‘the punishment should fit the criminal’. The positivists were attacking head on the idea of ‘free will’, arguing instead that socio-economics played their part in offending too. However, Positivism was not without its problems. The ‘biological’ positivism of Cesare Lombroso for example, theorised that criminals were ‘less developed’ evolutionarily, and that they had characteristics of primates and rodents – which may say more about Lombroso that his ‘subjects’ (Lombroso, 1911 [1876]; McCulloch, Phoenix and Copson, 2019). In effect Lombroso was aping classicism by throwing ‘individualism’ away and adopting the classical idea of innate behaviour, such as ‘free will’ and hedonism, making the assumption that people are predisposed to crime; though, not as ‘individuals’ but as a ‘group’. Lombroso was in essence ‘labelling’ people as members of a ‘criminal class’.

Essentially, both Classicism and Positivism are core to the ideas of ‘crime and justice’ in the post Enlightenment modern sense; that is, they laid the foundations of the ‘Rule of Law’ that Western Democracies claim is their legitimating concept – however, the Brexit debate and Parliament’s inability to resolve the ensuing deadlock is bringing that ‘concept’ into question. The classical perspective is still today the very foundation on which the modern idea of ‘justice’ stands; therefore, it must be seen in that light. The ideas behind Hobbs et al are just as relevant today as at any time since they were developed as argued in this essay – especially the ‘social contract’. However, those ideas, as revolutionary as they were – and still are – can only go so-far in an understanding of contemporary issues of crime and justice. The idea of the ‘Individual’ must be central to any meaningful understanding of contemporary justice. Therefore, the sociological positivistic perspective is arguably the most useful approach in considering issues of crime and justice. It builds on the classical perspective’s strengths of establishing the ‘rule of law’ and adds the ‘individual’ to the idea of justice; for without the concept of individual rights, the rights of ‘groups’ such as the Working Class and political, ethnic and sexual minorities would not exist.

In conclusion, this essay compared and contrasted the strengths and weaknesses of classicism with the Positivistic perspective. It used Thomas Hobbs’ social contract theory to frame Classicism; and its core beliefs of ‘free will’ and ‘rationality’ to show the important ‘framework’ it provided. The Positivistic approached was used to show the limitations of classicism, using the positivistic idea of the ‘individual’, to highlight the ‘utilitarian’ nature of classicism; therefore, highlighting positivisms strength of bring the concept of individual ‘equality’ to the concept of ‘crime and punishment’. The essay found that Classicism and Positivism together had a holistic effect on dealing with the limitations of justice in the past. Moreover, the essay found that though the classical perspective was key in creating the concepts behind contemporary ideas of ‘justice’, it was the Positivistic approach which should be seem as more relevant in today’s world.

References

1. Beccaria, C. (1963) [1764] ‘On crimes and punishments’, reproduced in McLaughlin, E. and Muncie, J. (eds) Criminological Perspectives: Essential Readings,3rd edn, London, Sage, pp. 5–15.
2. Bentham, J. (1995) [1791] The Panopticon Writings, London, Verso
3. Hobbes, T. (1660) The Leviathan. Available at: https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/6/Hobbes_Thomas_1660_The_Leviathan.pdf (Accessed: 20 October 2019).
4. Lombroso, C. (1911) [1876] The Criminal Man (trans. G. Lombroso-Ferrero), New York, The Knickerbocker Press.
5. McCulloch, D. Phoenix, J. and Copson, L. (2019) Week 2: ‘Classicism and positivism in criminology’ DD804 Block 1 [Online]. Available at https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1504415 (Accessed 12 October 2019).
6. Quetelet, A. (1842) A Treatise on Man, Edinburgh, Chambers.

Introduction

I have chosen to compose my paper about the motion picture ‘Super Size Me’ which is coordinated by Morgan Spurlock in 2004 in the United States. The narrative film taking around ninety minutes of a multi day time span where Spurlock ate fast food chains from McDonald’s. The primary accentuation is on the physical and mental impacts of way of life numerous individuals accept by relying upon the quick fast food chains. Inexpensive food organizations in the state support poor sustenance, as not many individuals can comprehend the dietary benefits of the fast food chains they expend. Spurlock crosses the nation, to look at the healthy and unhealthy fast food chains in the cheap food organizations. This movie really shows the importance of the ethical problems related to the food business.

Social Contract Theory

This theory tries to offer a powerful structure which administrative and business choices that are made concerning their impact on relative networks and good measures. The motion picture features the dynamic idea of the danger of being obese procured from depending on quick fast food chainss and the impact the quick fast food chainss have contributed concentrating on McDonald’s which is a global inexpensive food chain. Being obese for too long is identified with various illnesses the most common which is the inability to breath(asthma) or a serious stroke. The hard obstacles these illnesses cause to an individual’s wellbeing are in the open area yet organizations keep on serving unsafe fast food chains without offering sufficient data concerning the nutritive qualities. According to (D’Agostino, Fred, Gaus) “The ultimate goal, then, of social contract theories is to show, in the most general sense, that social, moral, political, legal, etc. rules can be rationally justified. This does not, however, distinguish the social contract from other approaches in moral and political philosophy, all of which attempt to show that moral and political rules are rationally justifiable in some sense.”(p.1)

One may ask why cheap food organizations keep on growing amidst wellbeing related confusions realized by quick fast food chains. A single person of the unethical business practice is the organization culture that stresses on profits and great business execution rather than ethical conduct in the business. The devotion in the chain business lies in the clients as well as among the partners and the official officials. Despite the fact that the protagonist neglected to secure pay for impeding wellbeing condition, organizations should confront punishments for neglecting to give buyers great data concerning the items. According to (Neiman) “The first approach directly applies the social contract theory of a political philosopher to issues of business ethics. For example, the parallels between Thomas Hobbe’s state of nature and concept of human nature, from which Hobbes justifies the powers of government, and multinational corporation in the global marketplace, from which palmer justifies adherence to national lawns a commitment to sustainability.'(p1) Great business ethics request that organizations adjust their practices and maintain relative ethics. Cheap food organizations ought to other than teach their kin on the fast food chains as they plan as a system of controlling the harm done to people in general. Organizations are probably going to lose when looked with allegations on terrible ethics and social untrustworthiness.

In the midst of the enlightenment period, many philosophers contributed many commentaries on the political viewpoints of their society. Some writings had also influenced the start of the American and French revolutions. Philosophers dissected on the notion that existing social and political order would not withstand critical observation and examination which were put into a world with mysteries, myths, and various phenomenons. This puts very reputable critiques through theoretical standpoints. A well-known philosopher of this time period was Thomas Hobbes. In this essay, the critical outlines of Thomas Hobbes’s Contract theory and the relevance of how he changed society will be identified and discussed. Hobbes’s main concern was that society needs an order in which to live peacefully and avoid conflicts with each other. In this essay, we will talk about why Thomas Hobbes’s Social Contract theory is still relevant and improvements have been established in regards to modern philosophy and the current circumstances of society today.

Summary

According to Thomas Hobbes, a Social Contract was seen as “The mutual transferring of individualistic rights that are surrendered to contribute towards a higher power” (Thomas Hobbes: Social Contract para. 4). Before such a person like Hobbes existed, the world was known as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (in Burger 2013). Since man was on his own, this made it so that it was impossible to cooperate with the economy because no socialism or care for others was as relevant besides supplying for themselves, which resulted in constant conflicts within the natural aspects of society. Humans, in relevance to animals, were always seeking their own interest and will basically do anything to help themselves, as this highlights the saying of “every man for himself”. Hobbes describes this as “bellum omnium contra omnes” meaning war of all against all, which was within his philosophical narrative, “De Cive”. Here he is making an argument that a world without a leader, man would no longer be adequately be able to live his life. He was in fear of losing what he gained in his own self-interest, thus creating the social contract.

Critique

The social contract theory clearly has benefits but also shortcomings. An advantage which was mentioned in Browne (para 12), is that “It provides very clear answers to very difficult questions in ethical theory”. For example, what moral rules are we supposed to follow and how are those rules justified or non justified. What makes it reasonable for we the people to follow the moral rules of society. Under what circumstances are we allowed breaking the rules. It also seems to provide an objective basis for morality. In Browne (para13) states, “One disadvantage of the social contract theory is whether the social contract ever had a basis in history” most recent proponents of the social contract, are clear about the fact that the social contract does not necessarily refer to historical events. The use of the social contract is to act as a test for justification of rules people have to follow. Also, it can be said that we implicitly participate in such a social contract by acting cooperatively in our social arrangements. We vote by going along with the outcome in terms of a Democracy. David Hume also points out that there had never been a situation called the state of nature’ and that nobody had consented to a social contract, mainly because the social contract was purely hypothetical (Rusling 5). Since we are born into a society and we don’t need a contract theory because our belief is that the government is in our best interests and therefore the people support its continuation. Moreover, Olynyk states that “Hobbes makes no allowance for the moral side of people and society. Therefore his theory implies that people without states would have no moral limits.” (Olynyk 8) It is difficult to concur with Olynyk analysis since modern-day experiences particularly in Somalia and the Middle East have shown that where there is state failure life appears brutish and nasty as Hobbes describes. One must admit that Hobbes social contract theory has many relations to contemporary society. Even though we are not born in a hypothetical state of nature, we form a social contract every time we vote for a party. The agreement lays that we give up our rights to be protected, to progress economically. The laws instituted by the state are binding upon all citizens. Like Hobbes secularization state many modern rulers government including Guyana do not claim authority from God, but his or her ability to provide and facilitate the development of citizens; such acts legitimize the ruler government. However there is an important caveat, given the modern experience of the division of powers, Hobbes illustration of a monarchical ruler who makes laws, execute taxation, etc are extreme and atypical. In Guyana there are separations of power Executive, judiciary, and legislation such division is to ensure that power will check power each division will keep the other in check. Since according to Lord Acton ‘Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Conclusion

Hobbes social contract was one notable exception with regards to the nature of legitimacy of rulers, Hobbes social contract still has relevance for contemporary society as it is apparent that the ‘state of nature’ argument is still pertinent. Experience in failed states and with modern day terrorist network show that life can still be nasty, brutish and short. Further, Hobbes theory has laid an important and lasting foundation for modern states. Throughout hobbes lifetime he mainly believed that the only true and right form of government was a monarchy. He argues that human beings are just selfish creatures in general and why the social was created in the first place, otherwise we will all be fighting without civil laws. With this being said there are many critiques that tried to challenge or support this theory of Thomas Hobbes’s Social Contract theory. A natural human beings instinct is to be involved in fulfilling their needs to what makes them happy or to survive. To conclude, Hobbes landmark was to form a government strong enough to keep humanity cruel thinking lawfully fixated from tyranny government.