Download Click www.ondix.com to visit our student-to

Click www.ondix.com to visit our student-to-student file sharing network.
How did people ever get together, and probably be still long enough, to form
government? Were their rights negotiated or given? In this discussion we will look at the
meaning and nature of the social contract as seen from the point of view of political
theorists, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
General Social Contract
According to Roland (1994): "The fundamental basis for government and law in this
system is the concept of the social contract, according to which human beings begin as
individuals in a state of nature, and create a society by establishing a contract whereby
they agree to live together in harmony for their mutual benefit, after which they are said
to live in a state of society. This contract involves the retaining of certain natural rights,
an acceptance of restrictions of certain liberties, the assumption of certain duties, and the
pooling of certain powers to be exercised collectively." So the use of a social contract is a
give and take negotiation -usually. Because of this, it is excepted that the individual does
have rights to begin with, but by entering a community or starting a society, he agrees
that certain individual rights will be overridden for the greater good of the society.
Social Contract via Hobbes
One of the curious things about doing research concerning Thomas Hobbes is that he is
invariably labeled a "lunatic" or a crazy person, and that was by his contemporaries. We
may look at his ideas, and be bemused, in any of its variant forms. Yet his theories
concerning the nature of things have survived in history, possibly due to their perceived
outlandishness, or do they overtly say, those things that the rest of us would keep to
ourselves or only think about.
Thomas Hobbes wrote an influential book titled Leviathan (1651). In this book, he details
the idea of the social contract which states that men originally formed governments
because of their need for protection. In exchange for their safety, the people gave up all
their rights to the rulers including the right to revolt. For Hobbes, the state of nature was
not an actual period in history, but rather a way of rationalizing how people would act in
their most basic state. Advancing on the individualism put forth by Rene Descartes, "I
think, therefore I am", Hobbes uses the individual as the building block from which all of
his theories spring.
Rather than using a humanistic approach, Hobbes formulated his theories by way of
empirical observation. He believed that everything in the universe was simply atoms in
motion, and that geometry and mathematics could be used to explain human behavior.
Consequently there was no need for Hobbes to attempt negotiation, if everything is of a
mathematic nature, then it simple is, by its very nature a given, just as a mathematical
proof might be.
For most certainly, his version of a social contract was do what I want, keep your mouth
shut and you will live. There is a story that Hobbes could only be involved in a social
contract, if he was the master and the other person was the servant. Doesn't say a lot for
his social skills does it?
Actually the concept will be less jarring if we lead into it. Leviathan, his famous work
that detailed his physicalist outlook and his concept of the value of a social contract for a
peaceful society. Hobbes explained that if individuals within a society continually lived
by their own self-interests, they would continue to hurt each other and be stuck in a "state
of war." If the members of a society were made to live within certain bounds, which
made it impossible for them to harm each other, the members of that society would be in
a "state of peace."
The only way to achieve this peaceful society, Hobbes explained, was for all members of
a society to unconditionally transfer all of their ability and will to defend themselves, to a
sovereign power under a form of social contract. With this social contract established, the
sovereign power would accept the responsibility for mediating all disputes concerning the
society, both internal and external. Should any member of the society violate an
agreement with another member of that society, that individual would be guilty of
violating their unconditional agreement to support the social contract, which would then
render them unjust and subject to punishment.
According to James (2000), if there was a violation or difficulty with the social contract
you have no right to rebel. On the slim chance that rebellion was a possibility, according
to Bilson (1999), Hobbes proposed that an authoritarian government would come to
power in order to enforce the social contract by whatever means necessary. He gave this
government the name Leviathan, meaning monster. Individuals gave up all of their rights
to the leviathan except for the right to self-preservation because this was the reason they
created the social contract in the first place. Simply put, individuals exchanged their
rights in return for peace, security, and protection from one another. Hobbes believed that
the idea of returning to the state of nature is was horrid that they put forth little protest
against the immense restrictions placed by the government upon their natural liberty. The
ruler's will defines good and evil for his subjects. The King can do no wrong, because
lawful and unlawful, good and evil, are merely commands, merely the will of the ruler.
Social Contract via Locke
John Locke on the other hand, said in using a social contract,
"We give up our right to ourselves exact retribution for crimes, in return for impartial
justice backed by overwhelming force. We retain the right to life and liberty, and gain the
right to just, impartial protection of our property."
For Locke the state of nature was still a horrible place, but God's law created moral
imperatives preventing humans from partaking in the total free-for-all that Hobbes
described. People left the state of nature, according to Locke, not out of fear of violent
death, but as a matter of convenience and in order to protect their property. They did not
give all of their rights to an absolute authoritarian government. Instead, they formed two
distinctively separate agreements: the contract of society and the contract of the majority
of society and government or "trustee relationship." For Locke the state of nature was
still a horrible place, but God's law created moral imperatives preventing humans from
partaking in the total free for all that Hobbes described. People left the state of nature,
according to Locke, not out of fear of violent death, but as a matter of convenience and in
order to protect their property. They did not give all of their rights to an absolute
authoritarian government. Instead, they formed two distinctively separate agreements: the
contract of society and the contract of the majority of society and government also known
as a "trustee relationship." The contract of society took place when people gave up the
total freedom that they enjoyed in the state of nature to form society.
This society was made up of two types of people: Property and non-property owners.
Property owners being rational individuals were given the right of voting, while non
property owners, viewed as not being industrious, were not. Property owners were further
said to be of civil society while non-property owners were only considered to be in, but
not of society.
In order to fulfill the contract of the majority of society and government, the society as a
whole contracts an impartial third party to act as the government. This agreement is often
referred to as a trustee relationship, because the government has no rights, only
responsibilities to the people, and therefore acts only in the best interest of the members
of the society. The government is given its power to act by the property owning portion
of the population, not by the society as a whole.
Another point that makes Locke's theory different from Hobbes, is that society has
power. From Bilson (1999), we learn that the contract of society, or social contract, took
place when people gave up the total freedom that they enjoyed in the state of nature to
form society.
Another point that makes Locke's theory different from Hobbes is that society has the
power to overthrow the government. Since a majority created it, they have the power to
remove it. According to Hobbes's theory, the leviathan won't be overthrown because of
the great fear of returning to the state of nature. This coupled with the fact that the
government holds absolute power over the people, and is its only check against itself.
Locke on the other hand, stated that society could overthrow the government without
returning to the state of nature because the social contract would still be in effect. All that
was needed would be for the society to elect another government, by majority rule, to
replace the old one.
Consequently, if a ruler seeks absolute power, if he acts both as judge and
participant in disputes, if in pursuing the social contract process, he puts
himself in a state of war with his subjects, and we have the right and the duty to
kill such rulers and their servants.
This introduces, according to Bilson (1999) the idea that government should be
accountable to the people. As we can see from the above themes, Locke was in favor of a
limited government, not an authoritarian one like Hobbes described.
Comparison
According to Steele (1993), the study of social and political states has linked
philosophers across the ages. Some questions that have occupied these philosophers'
discussions are: Was there ever a period of time when men lived outside of societies and
what was it like; How did men escape that period and enter into a new time of societies;
Was it through force or mutual agreement; Once a form of government is chosen, or
appointed, who rules and are the rights of the individual preserved. Several of these
questions are addressed by both Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan, and by John Locke in Two
Treatises of Government. Both Hobbes and Locke wrote of that period prior to the
formation of societies, referred to as the State of Nature, when individuality, rather than
collectivity, described mankind. Each also wrote of how mankind was able to leave the
State of Nature and form civil societies. This transition from the State of Nature to
government was considered a contract by both of these 17th century philosophers.
Hobbes is traditionally labeled as having an alienation theory, while Locke is considered
as having an authorization theory. The fundamental difference between alienation and
authorization theories concerns what happens to an individual's rights once the contract is
executed.
Conclusion
Why is Hobbes considered a liberal? Although his theories could hardly be viewed as
liberal by today's standards, he was the first of a long line of ideologists and political
theorists to emphasize the importance of the individual and make them the center of
politics. He believed that government springs from human beings -individuals, and not
from some divine sense of purpose or a birthright.
If Hobbes can be thought of as the first liberal thinker, than it is only fitting that we
consider John Locke, the father of liberal democratic thought. Although Hobbes and
Locke differed in their theories on government and society, the one thing, according to
Bilson (1999), that they did have in common was their view of the importance and
autonomy of the individual in society. The extent to which this was true varies but the
one important fact remains - people existed as individuals before societies and
governments came into being. They each possessed certain rights, and all had the
freedom to do as they pleased, unrestrained according to Hobbes, and with some
restrictions placed upon them by God, according to Locke. This freedom of the individual
was important, for it was the foundation for modern liberal democracy
Work Cited
Bilson, Robert. "Hobbes and Locke...Modern Liberal Democracy."
http://www.members.dca.net/rbilson/hoblock.htm. 8/31/99.
James, D. "The Law of Nature for Hobbes and Locke."
http://catalog.com/jamesd/hobbes.htm. 9/6/2000.
Roland, Jon. "The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics."
http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.txt. 1994.
Steele, D.A. " Comparison of Hobbes and Locke on Natural Law and Social
Contract."
Air Force Institute of Technology. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH. 08/93.
Keywords:
people ever together probably still long enough form government were their rights
negotiated given this discussion will look meaning nature social contract seen from point
view political theorists thomas hobbes john locke general social contract according
roland fundamental basis government this system concept social contract according
which human beings begin individuals state nature create society establishing whereby
they agree live together harmony their mutual benefit after which they said live state
society this involves retaining certain natural rights acceptance restrictions certain
liberties assumption certain duties pooling powers exercised collectively give take
negotiation usually because excepted that individual does have rights begin with entering
community starting society agrees that individual will overridden greater good hobbes
curious things about doing research concerning thomas hobbes that invariably labeled
lunatic crazy person contemporaries look ideas bemused variant forms theories
concerning nature things have survived history possibly their perceived outlandishness
they overtly those things rest would keep ourselves only think about thomas wrote
influential book titled leviathan book details idea which states originally formed
governments because need protection exchange safety people gave rulers including right
revolt state actual period history rather rationalizing people would most basic advancing
individualism forth rene descartes think therefore uses individual building block from
theories spring rather than using humanistic approach formulated theories empirical
observation believed everything universe simply atoms motion geometry mathematics
could used explain human behavior consequently there need attempt negotiation
everything mathematic then simple very given just mathematical proof might most
certainly version what want keep your mouth shut will live there story could only
involved master other person servant doesn skills does actually concept less jarring lead
into leviathan famous work detailed physicalist outlook concept value peaceful explained
individuals within continually lived self interests would continue hurt each other stuck
members were made within bounds made impossible them harm each other members
peace only achieve peaceful explained members unconditionally transfer ability defend
themselves sovereign power under form with established sovereign power accept
responsibility mediating disputes concerning both internal external should member
violate agreement with another member guilty violating unconditional agreement support
then render them unjust subject punishment according james there violation difficulty
have right rebel slim chance rebellion possibility bilson proposed authoritarian
government come power order enforce whatever means necessary gave name leviathan
meaning monster individuals gave except right self preservation because reason created
first place simply exchanged return peace security protection from another believed idea
returning horrid forth little protest against immense restrictions placed upon natural
liberty ruler defines good evil subjects king wrong lawful unlawful good evil merely
commands merely ruler locke john locke hand said using give ourselves exact retribution
crimes return impartial justice backed overwhelming force retain life liberty gain just
impartial protection property still horrible place created moral imperatives preventing
humans partaking total free described left fear violent death matter convenience order
protect property give absolute authoritarian instead formed distinctively separate
agreements majority trustee relationship still horrible place created moral imperatives
preventing humans partaking total free described left fear violent death matter
convenience order protect property absolute authoritarian instead formed distinctively
separate agreements majority also known trustee relationship took when total freedom
enjoyed form made types owners owners being rational were given voting while owners
viewed being industrious further said civil while considered fulfill majority whole
contracts impartial third party agreement often referred trustee relationship
responsibilities therefore acts best interest owning portion population whole another point
makes theory different bilson learn took when freedom enjoyed point makes theory
different overthrow since remove theory overthrown great fear returning coupled fact
holds absolute over check against itself hand stated could overthrow without returning
effect needed elect rule replace consequently ruler seeks acts both judge participant
disputes pursuing process puts himself subjects duty kill such rulers servants introduces
bilson idea should accountable above themes favor limited like described comparison
steele study political states linked philosophers across ages some questions occupied
these philosophers discussions ever period time when lived outside societies what like
escape period enter into time societies through force mutual once chosen appointed rules
preserved several these questions addressed both john treatises wrote prior formation
societies referred individuality rather than collectivity mankind each also wrote mankind
able leave civil transition considered these century philosophers traditionally labeled
having alienation while considered having authorization fundamental difference between
alienation authorization concerns what happens once executed conclusion liberal
although hardly viewed liberal today standards first long line ideologists political
theorists emphasize importance make them center politics believed springs human beings
some divine sense purpose birthright thought first liberal thinker than fitting consider
father democratic thought although differed thing common view importance autonomy
extent true varies important fact remains existed before governments came into being
possessed freedom pleased unrestrained some restrictions placed upon important
foundation modern democracy work cited robert modern democracy http rbilson hoblock
james http catalog jamesd roland constitutional republics http constitution soclcont steele
comparison natural force institute technology wright patterson
Keywords General:
Essay, essays, termpaper, term paper, termpapers, term papers, book reports, study,
college, thesis, dessertation, test answers, free research, book research, study help,
download essay, download term papers