Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of Justice
Critically examine Thomas Hobbes social contract theory
Social contract theory research
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The role of Justice
Thomas Hobbes has a primary emphasis on the state of nature and the social contract. Hobbes’s theory is categorized in several different ways. First, he is considered a pseudo natural law theorist. This is because he bases many of his premises on natural law. Additionally, Hobbes is referred to as a social contract theorist because he initiated the philosophical concept of the social contract. Finally, Hobbes can be categorized as a justice theorist, since many of his writings deal with justice and the state. Hobbes’s exclusive focus in on political power. He believed that the principle of human self-motion was desire. Essentially, he argues that there are two basic principles of voluntary action. The fist he called appetites. Hobbes …show more content…
He believed that the social contract obliges government to carry out the will of the majority. The government is established only as a definite way of carrying out the will of the majority and thus securing the common good of the community. Locke also stated that the social contract depends upon the consent of the governed. “But to conclude, Reason being plain on our side, that Men are naturally free, and the Examples of History shewing, that the Governments of the World, that were begun in Pease, had their beginning laid on that foundation, and were made by the Consent of the …show more content…
Nietzsche evaluates the world in terms of how it really is. He recognizes that people are inherently different and frames his philosophy accordingly. This, his philosophical paradigm is superior in terms of its realism. Furthering that argument, Nietzsche also shows that he wants to preserve societal advancement. Nietzsche was primarily concerned what society would stagnate if we settled for mediocrity. While his philosophy may be somewhat elitist, it mandates societal advancement because it allows the elites to rise to the top and push society forward. There is link to Christianity. Societies cannot push forward with this notion of God. Christianity, with its conception of transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient and a just God, denies and negates too much that is valuable in this world. There was a direct link to Christianity and how there was a real manifestation of the will to power and that certain individuals have revealed themselves. He accounts for his own ethics. Nietzsche accounts for all people in society and provides all people the equal opportunity to maximize their own power. While power differences are inevitable based upon individual differences, all people have the same opportunity to Will to Power. This creates the basis of his ethics as
Friedrich Nietzsche was a brilliant and outspoken man who uses ideas of what he believe in what life is about. He did not believe in what is right and wrong because if who opposed the power. Nietzsche was against Democracy because how they depend on other people to make some different or change, while Nietzsche believe they should of just pick the ones that were gifted and talent to choose what to change. Nietzsche also does not believe in Aristocracy because how they depend on an individual person to create the rules or change those benefits for him. As you see Nietzsche did not like how they depend on one person to decide instead of each person to decide for himself for their own benefits.
However, Nietzsche’s idea of the powerful forcing their will on common people resonates with me. It is something we see in our modern society, wealthy people seem to have a higher influence over the average American. Examples of powerful people controlling others are found in politics, economy, media, and religion. Common people are lead to think in certain ways that the powerful need them to. Nietzsche said that people will only be equal as long as they are equal in force and talent, people who have a higher social group are more influential in decisions because average people look to them for information. The thing I do not agree with Nietzsche on his view as Christianity as a weakness because religion is a main cause of people’s decision
Thomas Hobbes was a philosopher during The Enlightenment whose philosophy laid the foundation for the democratic theory. The Enlightenment was a period of time from the 1620’s to the 1780’s that provided an emphasis on individualism rather than the traditional path of authority. The Enlightenment came about during the Scientific Revolution. It was the Scientific Revolution that began to change the way people and scientist looked at the physical world around them. Scientist began to question the traditional scientific beliefs, similarly to the way the philosophers began to challenge the traditional social and governmental beliefs. Hobbes himself, believed more in absolutism, the belief that the power should be given to one person.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) were both prominent philosophers during the 17th Century. They were both known as natural law theorists and social contract theorists. Hobbes is widely known for his writing of the “Leviathan” and John Locke is famous for his writing of the book, “Two Treatises of Government.” Both men wrote about natural law, positive law, and social contract. Positive Law is “statutory man-made law, as compared to "natural law" which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles, "God's law," and/or derived from nature and reason.” (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Positive+Law). Although Hobbes’ and Locke shared some ideas, overall their conclusions were different. In general, Hobbes believed that man is evil, whereas Locke believed that man is inherently good. This in turn led to their differences in their theories of positive law and social contract. Locke’s view is more consistent with our present state of government in most places around the world today.
Locke believed that the government existed to promote public good, and to protect the life, liberty, and property of its people. For this reason, those who govern must be elected by the society, and the society must hold the power to establish a new government when deemed necessary. In his essay, Second Treatise on Government, Locke argues that if society is dissolved, the government will also dissolve. What makes a society (or community) is the agreement of many individuals to act as one body. If this agreement is broken, and the individual decides to separate “as he thinks fit, in some other society” then the community will dissolve.
Locke believed that people created governments by freely consenting to those governments and that governments should serve citizens, not hold them in subjection.1
2. What is the difference between Hobbes’ and Locke’s conception of the state of nature, and how does it affect each theorist’s version of the social contract?
John Locke powerfully details the benefits of consent as a principle element of government, guaranteed by a social contract. Locke believes in the establishment of a social compact among people of a society that is unique in its ability to eliminate the state of nature. Locke feels the contract must end the state of nature agreeably because in the state of nature "every one has executive power of the law of nature"(742). This is a problem because men are then partial to their own cases and those of their friends and may become vindictive in punishments of enemies. Therefore, Locke maintains that a government must be established with the consent of all that will "restrain the partiality and violence of men"(744). People must agree to remove themselves from the punishing and judging processes and create impartiality in a government so that the true equality of men can be preserved. Without this unanimous consent to government as holder of executive power, men who attempt to establish absolute power will throw society into a state of war(745). The importance of freedom and security to man is the reason he gives consent to the government. He then protects himself from any one partial body from getting power over him.
Force, Morality and Rights in Thomas Hobbes and John Locke's Social Contract Theories. Throughout history, the effects of the unequal distribution of power and justice within societies have become apparent through the failure of governments, resulting in the creation of theories regarding ways to balance the amount of power given and the way in which justice is enforced. Due to this need for change, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke created two separate theories in which the concept of a social contract is used to determine the ways in which a government can govern without forfeiting justice. In this essay, the relationship between force, morality, and rights within both theories will be investigated in order to determine the most beneficial format for society based on the ideas of the natural condition of mankind, the rights of the government, and the rights of the governed.
Thomas Hobbes was considered a rebel of his time. He rose in opposition of tradition and authority. This made him one of the most hated men because his ideas were considered too modern and extremely dangerous. According to Hobbes, he had three opinions on human nature. The first is that we are all self-interested, driven by power, greed, and vainglory. The second is that we are all capable of using reason. The last point he made is that we are all more or less equal; in terms of physical needs and we are vulnerable to those needs. He had a rather pessimistic view of humans and how we act in order to survive. Thomas Hobbes view of the state of nature was that self interest
Thomas Hobbes, the seventeenth century political philosopher, had some theories and ideas keenly similar to those of Plato. Hobbe's view of the state of nature was a very primitive one: he felt that in the state of nature there was a war of every person against every person. In the natural state justice was impossible, because without set limits and structures, everyone has the right to do whatever they wish and anarchy is almost inevitable. The only ay to escape the unfortunate state of anarchy was for everyone to agree a covenant. The conditions of the covenant were to give the sovereign full discretion in dealing with citizens.
ABSTRACT: The classical contract tradition of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have enjoyed such fame and acceptance as being basic to the development of liberal democratic theory and practice that it would be heretical for any scholar, especially one from the fringes, to critique. But the contract tradition poses challenges that must be given the flux in the contemporary socio-political universe that at once impels extreme nationalism and unavoidable globalism. This becomes all the more important not in order to dislodge the primacy of loyalty and reverence to this tradition but from another perspective which hopes to encourage that the anchorage of disclosure be implemented. The contract tradition makes pronouncements on what is natural and what is nonnatural. It offers what many have contended are rigorous arguments for these pronouncements that are "intuitive," "empirical," "logical," "psychological," "moral," "religio-metaphysical." What I offer in this essay is a challenge from the outside. I ask: 1) on what empirical data are the material presuppositions of contractarianism built? 2) what is the epistemological foundation of contractarianism? 3) is contractarianism not derivable from any other form of sociological presupposition except that of the state of nature? 4) does any human know a "state of nature"? 5) given the answers to the above questions, to what extent are the legal and moral foundations of contractarianism sacrosanct? I attempt to answer these questions in what can only be a sketch, but my answers suggest that it is very presumptuous of contractarianist to suppose that they have captured the only logically valid basis of democratic practice universally.
Hobbes view of human nature lead him to develop his vision of an ideal government. He believed that a common power was required to keep men united. This power would work to maintain the artificial harmony among the people as well as protect them from foreign enemies.
Thomas Hobbes creates a clear idea of the social contract theory in which the social contract is a collective agreement where everyone in the state of nature comes together and sacrifices all their liberty in return to security. “In return, the State promises to exercise its absolute power to maintain a state of peace (by punishing deviants, etc.)” So are the power and the ability of the state making people obey to the laws or is there a wider context to this? I am going to look at the different factors to this argument including a wide range of critiques about Hobbes’ theory to see whether or not his theory is convincing reason for constantly obeying the law.
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are all social contract theorists that believe in how the people should have certain rights with allows them to have individual freedom. They also believe that the people must give consent in order for the government to work and progress. Although Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have similar aspects in their theories, they differ from each other through the reason why a government should be created.