The problem with the social contract lies in the opposing forces of individual freedom versus the sovereign that was formed when they united. How can we give up our individual rights without hurting them? Rousseau states, “The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before." This is the crux of
First, we will consider Locke’s view regarding the social contract to notice the differences between his view and that of Hume. According to Locke, the state of nature is one where men are free and independent to do as they desire as long as it is within the bounds of the law of nature and morality, but that a contract is agreed upon because of the inconveniences in that state, and to deviate away from the states of war that occur between individuals. Locke claims that the state of nature is historical since men can for agreements and still be in that state. But then provides one exception that drives men out of that state, which is when they mutually agree to form a community. Hume does not support these claims, and argues
Are human beings actions drive only by rational and self-interest, or they having another motivations? Thomas Hobbes an English philosopher explains the Social contract in an easy way; an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of a society or a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each. (Merriam-Webster) The essence of contractarianism is “Actions are morally right just because they are permitted by rules that free, equal, and rational people would agree to live by, on the conditions that others obey these rules as well.”, which is originated as a political theory and later is developed into a moral theory. There are 2 principal assumptions, the first that we are motivated by self-interest (ethical
Leon Duguit, a French jurist believed that scientific progress can be accelerated by individual behaviour in order to satisfy common social needs and interests. Duguit rejected the prevailing concept of state, sovereignty, law as command, or a free human will and said that the basis of law is the fact of social and natural interdependence of individuals and groups upon each other. According to his social solidarity theory, a man, if wishes to live in a society, he must act in conformity with social law and solidarity which are the moral duties. He says ‘ Man must so act that he does nothing which may injure social solidarity upon which he depends, and more positively, he must do all which naturally tends to promote social solidarity. The Indian Legal System seems to agree with this theory of Duguit.
The ancient is seeking the good life, right order and supporting virtue while the modern philosophers are concerned with peace and order. The moderns’ numerous theories undermine the purpose of government and reduce politics to power. Hobbes preserves that the purpose of the government is to keep up peace and order. In addition, he suggests the ruler should be a sovereign who has supreme power, which is a power of the people. The state of nature creates a paradox where people move from complete liberation to an wholly sovereign submission.
He believed that the situation was not entirely bleak because we are intelligent beings who can overcome the State of nature by forming states and creating civil society. Hobbes believed that if each individual shares the same views about acquiring peace and mutual co-operation then they can construct a social contract that will grant them immunity from the State of Nature. A social contract can be broken apart into two phases: the first is that people must mutually agree to establishing a society collectively by acknowledging each other’s right to live equally and the second phase is that they must agree to submit to the authority of an individual or group who will in turn make sure that the first phase of the social contract will be carried out. This is done so that those people who choose to engage in a social contract with one another can have surety that even if their counterparts fail to reciprocate the social contract terms then the authority in charge will enforce certain laws that will punish and deter people from going against the social contract. Since a state will be granted the authority to enforce punishments for those who breach the social contract then people will begin adjusting their lifestyles to in accordance with the social contract unlike in the State of Nature wereby there was no officially authority to rule and enforce order so that people can co-operate despite their differences.
Ten (1991) pointed out that the social contract helps in establishing a new, artificial body that conserves and safeguards everyone’s wellbeing. Jean- Jacques Rousseau as well contributed to the social contract theory by arguing that since people are created to perfect freedom, it is fundamental that they also commonly surrender to the authority of governments. Therefore, referring to Hobbes and Rousseau social contract theories the seat belt regulation is one of the laws that stipulates a governmental rule that can be upheld to safeguard the individual citizen whose conduct is under restriction. This paper thus explores the significance of the seat belt law, theories on the topic and ethical basis. It will be an evaluation of Hobbes and Rousseau political theories by assessing its advantages.
This paper explores the works produced by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes. After exploring his early life we dive into his journey to becoming one of the most influential philosophers of his time. Discussing his works Leviathan and De Corpore we analyze his view on humans as naturally self- interested beings. Following, we deliberate on the best form of government, which is presented by Hobbes as an absolute sovereign. Hobbes social contract theory is also touched on in this paper as we discuss individuals’ position in the ruling of a city-state.
Hobbes 's moral theory is known as “social contract theory”,which is the method of justifying political principles or arrangements by appeal to the agreement that would be made among suitably situated rational, free, and equal persons.Social contract is a method that we ought to submit to the authority of an absolute sovereign power. There are four concepts employed by Hobbes which will be discussed as below. First,the right of nature indicate that every man is born to use his own power for the preservation of his own nature.Yet Hobbes adds reasons into the right of nature.Hobbes suggests that person A has the right to do action X as long as doing X has the right reason.Second,the law of nature is derived from the right of nature.Hobbes defines them as discoverable with reason and they are used to help people to avoid self-destruction and keep rational.Third,for Hobbes,all obligations are selfimposed,right of nature allows us to do anything we see fit to preserve our existence. Any restrictions on action must be voluntary.Finally it come to justice. For Hobbes, the just act is one that does not involve the contravention of a covenant.
ARIS describes the human element of resistance which is a pivotal fact prior definitions would rather us to ignore. These non-violent or “Velvet” revolutions or resistance movements have been successful at achieving their objectives and should not be easily discarded. Something easily done with the previous view on resistance and conflict. Essentially, ARIS is drawing attention to the gradual transformation of a non-violent resistance into a violent resistance. Acceptance of this awareness in all forms should enable political and military leaders the necessary cues to intervene within a resistance at the optimal point in