This is the basis of the state and it is maintained by the social contract. Hobbes’s social
5
contract is more than consent or concord; it is a real unity of them all, in one and the same person, made by covenant of every man with every man (L.2.17.13). People create a covenant representing their unity called the Leviathan and that covenant establishing through sovereignty. There is two ways to attain the sovereign power in Hobbes political philosophy. The first one which is called a government by acquisition used by men to govern someone’s children to destroy them if they refuse or by war to subordinate his enemies to his will with a natural force. The second one is when men agree amongst themselves, to submit to some man, or assembly of men, voluntarily, on confidence to be called government by institution
(L.2.17.15). Because our main topic is related to political issues, in this text, we will focus the relation between sovereign and its subjects.
The rights of sovereign are determined by institution (L.2.18), therefore the sovereign cannot be a party to the social contract. The parties of covenant are the subjects’ relations with the sovereign and each other. Moreover, all the liberties of subjects are transferred to
Burke’s Criticisms of Hobbes’ Social Contract Edmund Burke, after a visit to France in 1773, wrote a pamphlet titled Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) to express his disdain for the events and methods of the French Revolution. Where other political writers of the Enlightenment and Anti-Enlightenment Eras propose theories of politics and government, Burke does not promote a theory, a set of premises, a call to action, or even a succinct conclusion. He rather details his disposition of contractual government and politic science.
People for hundreds of years have asked what makes a just and fair society. One person who endeavored to answer this question was Thomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes claimed that freedom was good but security is better. He also believed that without government, laws, and society mankind would exist in a state of nature where life would be nasty, brutish, and short. To solve this problem Hobbes believed in creating a social contract and hand over their freedoms to a strong leader.
Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his Discourse on Inequality and Social Contract each attempt to explain the rise of and prescribe the proper management of human society. At the foundation of both philosophies is the principle that humans are asocial by nature, a precept each philosopher interprets and approaches in a different way. Hobbes states that nature made humans relatively “equal,” and that “every man is enemy to every man.” Life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” he says, and “every man has right to everything.” Rousseau outlines primitive asocial man having “everything necessary for him to live in the state of nature” from “instinct alone,” and being “neither good nor evil.”
There were many philosophers in the 17th and 18th century that influenced and inspired the founders of our country. For instance, John Locke believed that life, liberty, and property should be our natural rights as humans and if the government could not secure these rights then the people could get rid of them. That idea impacted Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. This was the perfect time to develop different theories and contradictions because this was right around the time of the printing press and protestant reformation where people started to question the catholic church. Other philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau impacted founders like George Washington and James Madison who have positively affected this country in many different ways.
Summary Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theory of social contract, which states that we need moral, legal rules because we want to escape the state of nature which is solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short. In this state, a man can kill others, and there are limited resources. This can soon lead to a state of war in which we are constantly disposed to harm others to achieve our goals. So, in this state of war if a person was to possess a beautiful house or property, and had all the comforts, luxuries, and amenities to lead a wonderful life; others could come and harm him and deprive him of his fruit of labor, life, and liberty. Therefore, the state of nature is that of fear, violence, and distrust.
Hobbes developed the ‘social contract theory’, which is the idea that civilians give up some of their freedom and liberty for protection from the leader. This concept, which was used during Hobbes’s time, is still a part of the government today. Hobbes brings down this concept in his world famous book, Leviathan. A picture of a ‘giant’ monarch holding onto a tiny world is used to describe his version of the social contract. The drawing depicts the trade of freedom for safety.
May 5, 1789, the beginning of the infamous French Revolution. Historians around the world studied the causes of the French Revolution, arguably regarded as one of the most important events in human history. Many important ideologies were developed during this time period. The current western political philosophies in France is the result of the French Revolution which introduced the principles of civic equality and popular sovereignty that challenged the historical Three Estates. Following many European reform trends, France in 1789 began their own major reform that lasted nearly a decade.
These reasons will prevent anarchy because one has a conscience to determine which laws to follow and which ones do not; therefore, one shows loyalty to the authority of law and also loyalty to one’s
Both social contract philosophers defended different views about moral and political obligations of men living in the state of nature stripped of their social characters. The state of nature illustrates how human beings acted prior to entering into civil society and becoming social beings living under common legitimacy. The state of nature is to be illustrated as a hypothetical device to explain political importance in the society. Thomas Hobbes, propounded politics and morality in his concept of the state
According to Hobbes, a sovereign, whether the sovereign was placed into power by violence or force, is the only way to secure law and order. For him, if a citizen obeys the sovereign for fear of punishment or in the fear of the state of nature, it is the choice of the citizen. According to Hobbes, this is not tyranny; it is his idea of a society that is successful, one that does not have room for democracy. As a realist, Hobbes has a fierce distrust of democracy and viewed all of mankind in a restless desire for power. If the people are given power, law and order would crumble in Hobbes’ eyes.
Thomas Hobbes described that life in a state of nature would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In addition, no one would be able to survive in an Anarchy society where there is no order and the safeguard of others is at risk. Therefore, governments require for citizens to surrender some freedom to obtain the benefits of the government. Thus, the government has preserved its two major purposes: maintaining order and providing public goods to the public and an uprising purpose of promoting equality. The main and oldest purpose of government is to maintain order by establishing laws to preserve life and protect property.
It is also important that there is a kind of reliance that the agreements will be kept. In chapter 17, Hobbes presents a solution for a commonwealth, where people in numbers consent to the single sovereign authority to have complete control over them by repressing some of the freedoms and enforce laws to safeguard order within a state. The Leviathan is described as a single body built up by components of citizens, constructed through agreement to surrender in obedience to this single authority, so as to flee from bringing destruction from one another. However the true liberties as outlined in chapter 21 of the Leviathan are not oppressive and establish the terms in which the authority is absolute only as it instructs its subjects in its proper use. (Carmichael,
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have become known as three of the most prominent political theorists in the world today. Their philosophies and innovative thinking is known worldwide and it has influenced the creation of numerous new governments. All three thinkers agree on the idea of a social contract but their opinions differ on how the social contract is established and implemented within each society. These philosophers state, that in order for the social contract to be successful people need to give up certain freedoms in order to secure fundamental protections from the state, henceforth the state then has certain responsibilities to their citizens. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all believe that before men were governed we all lived in a state of nature.
Many people have different viewpoints as to what criminal justice and criminology are, in my point of view I believe these two terms have a distinct definition and action. Although they might sound somewhat similar based on the textbook criminal justice is said to be defined as “institutions, policies, and practices with the goal of maintaining social control through sanctions and rehabilitation.” and it also states that criminology is “academic discipline that investigates the nature extent and causes of criminal offending”. In my own words, what my understanding of criminal justice is that it refers to the system of law enforcement, courts, and corrections in the U.S. that includes actions from the government in which aim to lessen the occurrence
Thomas Hobbes proposed that the ideal government should be an absolute monarchy as a direct result of experiencing the English Civil War, in which there was internal conflict between the parliamentarians and the royalists. Hobbes made this claim under the assumption that an absolute monarchy would produce consistent policies, reduce conflicts and lower the risk of civil wars due to the singular nature of this ruling system. On another hand, John Locke counters this proposal with the view that absolute monarchies are not legitimate as they are inconsistent with the state of nature. These two diametrically opposed views stem from Hobbes’ and Locke’s different understandings of human nature, namely with regard to power relationships, punishment, and equality in the state of nature. Hobbes’ belief that human beings are selfish and appetitive is antithetical with Locke’s contention that human beings are intrinsically moral even in the state of nature, which results in Locke’s strong disagreement with Hobbes’ proposed absolute monarchy.