In Book 1, The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the main focus is directed at why people give up their natural liberty in order to achieve protection from threats to themselves and their possessions. This then results in the formation of a legitimate sovereign we’re all members are equal. Rousseau believes that no human has authority over another individual because force cannot be established. He disputes that no one will give up his or her freedom without getting something back. I will focus my analysis on how the social contract states that we must give up our individual rights in order to obtain equality and security.
Let us examine the realist and constructivist approach to anarchy. Realism focuses on the theory self preservation and that rules are created by governments to protect its people which would also help prevent conflict. However international politics can not be credited with this. (Lebow, 2007) Waltz argued that the continued lack of ‘world government’ leads to violence between states. It seems to be the common belief among realists that because there is no clear authority that governs states on a global level, thats where anarchy exists; violence is always a constant possibility as each state strives for self preservation.
By deeming the collective population incompetent and likening their anti-governmental chatter to a plague, it is not a reach to assume Hobbes would not prescribe a right to revolution. He limits himself one exception - anything that would fall under someone acting out of self defense. If a subject were to feel that the actions of the sovereign put their lives in danger or served as threats towards their livelihoods, they retain the right to
Singer says that the help being offered by the individuals and by the government is nowhere near the kind of help that the situation requires to be resolved. He argues that people especially those living an affluent lifestyle need to alter their entire perception of morality. He puts forward the assumption he relies on in order to continue with his argument (automatically considering that assumption to be true): death and suffering due to the lack of basic necessities of life are bad. Singer then states the principle which is if we can prevent terrible occurrences without sacrificing something of equal moral significance then we should go ahead and do so; this principle plays a major role in his argument. Next, he puts forward a more moderate version of the principle by replacing equal moral significance with anything of moral significance.
Hobbes describes human psychology without any reference to the summum bonum, or greatest good, as previous thought had done. Not only is the concept of a summum bonum superfluous, but given the variability of human desires, there could be no such thing. Consequently, any political community that sought to provide the greatest good to its members would find itself driven by competing conceptions of that good with no way to decide among them. The result would be civil war.There is, however, Hobbes states, a summum malum, or greatest evil. This is the fear of violent death.
From time to time, Realism has insisted that cooperation in the system will be impossible due to states self-interest. As state as composed of man who were by nature is self-centered thus making his society focused on the personal gain rather on the absolute gain. International Treaties became International Law due to agreement of sovereign states. Yet with the explanation with accordance with the realist perspective a state will rely its own power for self-protection thus a sovereign state will act only according to their sovereignty and not act with accordance of the law. This papers aims to uphold its stand regarding that there is no international political system at present because of the following arguments: Realist perspective on Human Nature as source of conflict and Anarchy in the system as suppose to self-help.
Thus, human beings cannot act morally naturally; they must be compelled. Since they held strict social order in high regard, individuals were not allowed to defy such order for any reason. Thus, they believed that people must be forced to act morally by being punished for beaching the law. Forcing people to act morally meant imposing strict prohibitions on personal
For this their exists a goverment. A government is basically a body which acts as an intermediate between man and laws of nature and condemns those who go against the laws of nature.The Social contract exists on the belief that the government is formed for the benfits of the people and they aare the source of all political power enjoyed by the state. This theory has affected the foundations of various governments across the world including the American
In the hypothetical commonwealth, subjects have particularly restricted liberty and have to follow several strict commandments (Hobbes 98-104). One commandment in particular is quite bothersome to me, as it states that subjects cannot speak out negatively against their government (the sovereign) (Hobbes 100). Furthermore, if a subject was to violate the law they could even face death (Hobbes 100). This type of censorship of different political ideologies seems similar to that of corrupt regimes in contemporary society. The idea of having to live in a society in which I would have to fear critiquing those in power because doing so would endanger my life is deeply unnerving.
He refers to the Natural Rights as Anarchical Fallacies mainly because firstly, there cannot exist rights anterior to law and he refers to rights as child of law . He repudiates the idea of natural inherent rights that pre-exist in a lawless society and believes that the only kind of rule or principle involved could be a legal one. Secondly, taking the instrumentalist view, a reading of rights as natural rights will only cause unrest, instability, disobedience and resistance to laws amongst the citizens. It is only positively established political rights, enforced by the government, that have any legitimate meaning. He thinks it absolutely preposterous to say that all men are born equals when in reality people are born into different social classes with different means and resources, putting one at a higher advantage than another; nonsensical to believe