Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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