Book One of The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau focuses on the reasons that people give up their natural liberty in order to achieve protection from threats to themselves and their property. This results in the formation of a legitimate sovereign where all members are equal. Rousseau believes that no human has authority over another individual because force cannot be established. He argues that no individual will give up his or her freedom without receiving something in return. 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.
On the contrary, for Locke, the existence of the government was not necessary for society to exist, it was necessary for mankind to exist comfortably. The people Locke had in mind, were to voluntarily give up a small portion of their freedom and were not forced into the political covenant. In turn, they were not united as a society out of common fear, but out of a common understanding that they were the ones who granted the government
Ayn Rand once said, “Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group (to ‘society’, to the tribe, the state, the nation) and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its interest.” In Ayn Rand’s novella, Anthem, she depicts an anonymous, communist city in which no individual has any rights, they only exist for their “brothers”. Equality 7-2521 is a very venturesome and curious character that wants nothing more than to be an individual and live with no limits. The complication with Equality 7-2521 wanting to be his own individual is the rules and controls that comes with his collectivist society. In Anthem, it is a law that men and women should not speak or think of eachother. The book states, “And we take no heed of the law which says that men may not think of women, save at the Time of Mating” (Rand 41).
What if there were no rules in a dystopian community? We live in a world without the overstated rules, without order, without having to be impeccable, but we have freedom an individuality. “Dystopia” is defined as a fictional world where people live under a highly controlled totalitarian system, where individual identity is suppressed and families no longer exist. Rules and orders are negatively portrayed in dystopian societies and are acclaimed to take away the freedom, choice, and individuality. Henceforth, to inhibit the control within the community, the rules should be restricted.
Rousseau’s theory unlike Locke’s theory states that men would be independent and not need to rely on each other. He states “man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains". With this statement Rousseau believes this freedom and natural goodness is corrupted by the influence of civilization. Rousseau believed that egoism would be absent but compassion would be consistently present. Similarly to Locke, Rousseau believes that we should use our reason with reference to people and states that pity should be the forefront of
Robert Nozick was a pupil of Rawls and rejected his teacher’s insistence on the need for governmental intervention in order to achieve a redistribution of wealth. In his book, Anarchy, State and Utopia, he said that a just society is the one based on individualism. The natural rights of the individual are to be considered inviolable, and each person may enjoy those rights subject only to certain moral side restraints concerning the rights of others. He proposes a “minimal State” whose functions are limited to the “night-watchman” protection against force, theft, and fraud, the enforcement of contracts, and a few other essentials but it will not become involved in any form of economic redistribution. It has come into existence by morally permissible
Hobbes' conception of natural rights extended from his conception of man in a "state of nature". He argued that the essential natural (human) right was "to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature, that is to say, of his own Life, and consequently, of doing anything, which in his own judgement, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the unto." Hobbes sharply distinguished this natural "liberty", from natural "laws", described generally as "a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or take away the means of preserving his life, and to omit, that, by which he think it may best be
Thus, justice would mean, every person who is responsible to deliver justice should be obliged to perform his craft properly and eliminate any person, who within it does alien things, to harmonize the whole process. Craft justice is not instrumental to justice, it is justice in itself. Therefore, Plato says that the substance of law will not change only the approach will change. We can consider his theory as a kind of harmony between the individual being and the state as a whole. He viewed justice as an idea, an attribute of the mind, which itself in a
The state of nature creates a paradox where people move from complete liberation to an wholly sovereign submission. Justice has no place in the state of nature where people are led or ruled by fear to obey. Modern philosophers command their citizens to give up their freedoms and right of liberty, which is an inalienable natural right, to the collective
Nevertheless, Hobbes says that men are naturally individualistic and (political) society benefit to avoid war of every man against every man. Hobbes holds that the natural condition of men is “condition of war”. Therefore, creating commonwealth is the only method of preventing conflict between people. Hobbes disagrees the point of Aristotle (about state is natural) and Hobbes holds that creating state is not natural; it is a voluntary agreement or