in the social contract individuals contract with one another to give up the right of self-government, and give it to the sovereign 4. natural laws are morals that never change and apply to society as a backbone of conduct for humanity. Natural laws are political because some people may disagree with the laws and try to tweak them, however, this could disrupt the equilibreum between the rulers and the
According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the main problem of modern societies is that they do not promote either equality or freedom. Therefore, he proposes a model of government that is based on the “general will”. As I am going to explain in details later on, the general will for Rousseau is the only way to promote the common good for the whole society. However, in my opinion, his model of government ensures equality at the expense of personal freedoms. In fact, he believes that people need to be educated to a common civic sense that allows them to pursue a greater good; but for me his education is a form of indoctrination and Rousseau’s perfect government is destined to degenerate in a totalitarian regime.
The purpose of the state is to carry out the function of bringing these goals to the people - the only thing that matters is that the state abides to the contract. No matter how it is achieved, as long as the state does it, the people cannot object. For example, a state might ban dissents even if they are factually accurate, because from a utilitarian perspective it is better off if people do not know about the limitations of the state as they would be more satisfied with it, hence less likely to revolt. Hobbes might say that it is this order that keeps the state from chaos, thus the people - suppose they feel repressed from the rigidity - cannot object to the state, because it does what it can do to keep society from breaking apart. The fact that the state does what it can - by limiting free speech - is a way of achieving their end goal of securing safety and peace.
The social contract is based on the voluntary surrendering of rights and personal liberties in exchange for protection by a higher agency, the government. The social contract therefore, is a form of cure for the state of nature existence, where man’s primary drive is the selfish need to preserve themselves, meaning they could use any force and personal resources to acquire all property deemed useful to the propagation of their interests. In the social contract theory, a human agrees to ‘give up’ their rights to liberty as a means to the cause, which is realizing the greater good for the people in the
Locke states that there are three types of power (paternal, familial, and political) and expresses his fear of the types getting confused. Political, which is the right to make laws or protection and regulation of property, is the most important to Locke as it directly concerns the good of the public. In his process of defining political power, Locke refers to the state of nature (natural instincts of people) as a state of equality in which no person has more power than another. He notes, however, that there is a natural level of universal law that exists in this nature and that people do not have license to abuse others. Locke proposes that natural law only calls for the punishment to fit the crime.
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.
The thesis of this essay is there is the connection between discipline of upbringing and human freedom. It seems to be that there is no freedom together with discipline and punishments in upbringing up of children. How a child can feel free if he has no choice of how to behave and life. Hegel’s notion of freedom is self-determination but exactly within the state. Freedom is historical product and it relates to society, not individuality.
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls describes justice as “the first virtue of social institutions”, and as a matter of fairness. He sets out his aim for a theory building on the social contract idea, as a feasible alternative to classical utilitarian conceptions of justice (Rawls, 1971, p. 3). In seeking an alternative to utilitarianism, Rawls argues against what he regards as the prevailing dominant theory. He comments that in the utilitarian view of justice “it does not matter, except indirectly, how the sum of satisfactions is distributed among individuals” (Idis, p. 23). In other words, utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between individuals (categorizing everyone in one branch).
The object of this essay is to show a simple evaluation of john Stuart mill principle “an action is right that it does not cause harm to another person” I will be exercising both evaluations and explaining why the positive side outweighs the negative side of the principle, in a society that it’s people are emancipated to control their own opinions. Mill Stuart in his autobiography of 1873 he narrates liberty as a philosophic chronicle of indivisible accuracy. (Mill (1989.edn).p.189) rather than speaking of rights, many claim a ‘right’ not to be harmed ,mill says that only a harm or risk to harm is enough vindication for using power above someone else. John Stuart moreover he adequate his principle by reckoning that it is not good to use power on others. He further more say that he allows privilege (exemption) to the harm principle.
On first reading, Hobbes seems to provide a succinct and coherent concept of freedom and human freedom. He tells the reader that individuals are free to the extent they are unhindered by external impediments. However, Hobbes differs on his thoughts on liberty in the state of nature and liberty when living under the sovereign. The freedom agents have in the state of nature is the reason why subjects must ultimately renounce their right to a commonwealth and form civil government. Additionally, this formation of civil government creates the need for political obedience from the subjects.