For one, the proposal provided a nice middle ground between humans’ primitive instincts and the necessity of a governing body. It allowed people to maintain their individual liberty while having the structure of a formal government because submission to the authority of the general will guarantees individuals from being subordinated to the wills of others, and also ensures that they themselves obey the law because they are the authors of the law. However, if someone were to disagree with the direction of the general will, he/she should still be compelled to stay in the social contract because he can maintain both his particular interest and the common interest. The idea of a social contract resonated with the people during the Enlightenment as it related to their interest in pursuing of whatever they wanted to, as opposed to adopting the mentality of a
Thomas Hobbes developed what is now known as the Social Contract Theory. This is the theory that to live in a functioning society contracts, or agreements, must be put in place to restrict the freedom of men in order to maintain peace. Although this is a political theory, Hobbes makes claims on human nature that are harsh and seemingly cynical. I will lay out an argument for why his theory seems to lack the incorporation and recognition of natural human emotions. Then, I will explain how Hobbes would counter this argument using examples from his philosophical text, Leviathan.
He further explains that submission of own will before sovereign happens when all the people share same concern. Thomas Hobbes writes “That a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself. “ Hobbes represents a compromise between two factions, Divine Right of Kings and democratic view .
Were we born with what we now know? “How do we gain our knowledge according to Locke? Can we trust it?” John Locke was amongst the famous philosophers and political theorists within the 17th century. He was considered the founder of education widely known as the British Empiricist, Locke made many contributions to modern theories within the liberal government. In his widely known work the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke wanted to understand the human mind and the acquisition of knowledge.
In order to restore freedom to mankind, Rousseau suggests there has to be a social contract. The establishment of a social contract in the society requires mankind to wilfully let a political entity govern him and his private property. This kind of submission is called the general will and it aims to govern mankind by allowing free and equal co-existence. Rousseau’s argument is based on the single notion that mankind is generally good by nature, but made evil by the society. However, his argument is not plausible since it does not explain how a society which he claims to be evil is composed of good mankind.
His impression on the law shifts in the climax as compared to his views in the genesis of Anthem. This shift in thought creates a prodigious contrast when in reference to Equality’s morality and the morality that his brothers share. The disparity is evident. Equality 7-2521 is an individual who clings onto his own understanding and intellect. He may live in a society of collectivism and a demand for obedience, but he favors his values.
Rousseau would argue that as the general will is the collected will of the community, and by following the general will each individual will be following himself. The individual would not be following a third party, but following his own will. In this way, by obeying the law enacted by the general will an individual would be truly free. In Rousseau’s opinion one can only be free in a society by following the general will. It will not be an unabated freedom like that of the state of nature, but it will be a civil liberty, a moral freedom.
In my point of view having freewill is the source of rights. Because we only have the use and benefits of rights when we have freewill. Explaining this argument, there is no logic of giving rights to a creature or person which cannot grasp or having need to use those rights and giving rights to that living is pointless. Furthermore I disagree with Locke`s view that rights protect men from the force of others (1). Rights are ethical principles and moral values we have in our lives.
Political Philosophy is a wide branch of philosophy that focuses statements and arguments involving political opinion. It is all about state, politics itself, liberty, justice and the idea of authority. It tackles the meaning of government itself, why it is needed, what makes a government legitimate, the freedom of its underman, duties of both government and citizens and other political stuff. This type of philosophy is being practiced since it was discovered and has two reasons. First is the method and approach the philosopher and second is the philosopher's agenda that made him came up with the methods he used.
[ Ibid. ] Natural law can exist without the governance of a superior being through the usage of positive law. Positive law is needed because of the insufficiency of the natural law to direct man in the practical affairs of his life. A state has the power to make laws then oblige the subjects in conscience to obey in order to provide the benefits of a well-ordered life. With or without a superior being, there will still be an authority that is capable of making laws to ensure the common good based on natural law along with positive