More handpicked essays just for you.
Strengths and weaknesses of the social contract theory
Hobbes locke and rousseau social contract
Strengths and weaknesses of social contract theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Social contract adheres to the concept that in pre-societal terms man relied on the state of nature: life with no government and no regulation. Interpretations of state of nature from English Philosopher Thomas Hobbes and that of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau differ on the basis of development and operation of the social contract. Hobbes proposed that man lived in fear and self-interest to the point that it was in human nature to seek security and self-protection to which he [man] enters a social contract. While Rousseau argues that man’s individualism, freedom, and equality is diluted through the formation of modern civilization and is “forced to be free” (p.46). How social contract operates from perspective of Hobbes and Rousseau …show more content…
can be broken down by man’s state of nature, agreement of pactum unionis, and agreement of pactum subjectionis. Hobbes’ (1651) conception of human state of nature rivets around the notion that man is in a constant state of war in order to obtain “gain…safety…and reputation” (p. 31). It is in the right of nature that individuals seek self-preservation in any way that they see rational, which does not exclude power over each other. Therefore there is a need of a sovereign to establish order and punishment. Individuals’ reason of protecting themselves and their property would rely on the agreement of unity under laws and the surrendering of liberty to the sovereign- absolutism in the monarch. However, so long as it is distinguished from the Law of Nature- the obligation to the sovereign. It is crucial to determine “liberty” from that of “obligation”. In order for individuals to escape the fear of each other and break free from this state of war they must subject to the commonwealth which is formed through acquisition and institution. Rousseau being on the opposite side of socio-political spectrum defies Hobbes reasoning in which the sovereign evolves from a tool of law and order to that of a source of unity under the General Will. According to Rousseau (1762), man’s state of nature is free and equally assured in a sense that he is seeking “his own preservation, his first cares are those he owes to himself, he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself…” (p.
39). This showing a slight similarity to the right of nature by Hobbes. That is, until man is forged into community and civilization. In which the matter of liberty forces certain individuals into chains. How individuals satisfied their state of nature during the development of communities changes to what he describes the descent from the State of Nature. Private property or slavery exemplifies that man surrenders not to the sovereign of one but that of the interest of General Will. As individuals become apart of the civil state liberty is determined by the agreement of laws under the social contract. By abiding by these common laws certain liberty is masked by obedience. While the sovereign suggests unity under General it reveals inequality that men have among each other.
Perspectives of the operation and development of social contract between Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau revolve not only on the socio-political context of the two philosopher but also the general perception of how the state of man in nature results to the agreement of pactum unionis, and agreement of pactum
subjectionis. Reference: Calhoun, C., Gerteis, J., Moody, J., Pfaff, S., & Virk, I. (2012). Classical sociological theory (Third ed.). Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
The Social Contract and the Leviathan by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, respectively, contextualizes man’s struggle to escape a brutish, short life within the state of nature. Man is confined in a lawless world where the words mine and thine are interchangeable, and where there is no regard for private possession; this indifference even extends to the right over someone’s body. And while there are those who revel in freedom from the synthetic chains of law, the reality of life in the state of nature- a life of constant war and distrust for one’s neighbor- trumps any short lived joys or monetary gains. Although it may seem like there is no hope for man in this state, Hobbes and Rousseau presents us with a way to escape this tragic
Throughout the assigned portions of the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes proves to be a "social contract" theorist, however inconsistently. Through his explanation of humanity extracting itself out of the state of Nature, by developing rules pertaining to property and contract, by means of the creation of a Sovereign, or Common Wealth, he clearly elucidates the basic concepts of social contract theory.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke grew up around the same time, so naturally they must have many similarities, but the environment they grew up in resulted in many differences as well. Hobbes grew up during the English Civil War, which shaped his ideas while Locke lived through the Revolution of 1688 which was when a king was overthrown for being unjust and that helped form his ideas. Hobbes and Locke both said that the state of nature is bad and some order is always needed. The difference between their beliefs is the type of government that should be in place to maintain order that is needed to manage stable lives.
Thomas Hobbes is now broadly viewed as one of a smaller group of truly extraordinary political thinkers, whose major work was the Leviathan rivals in meaning the political writings of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls. Hobbes is most known for his for his early and elaborate development of what has come to be known as “social contract theory”, 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. He is most famous for using his theory on the social contract to submit that human beings should submit to an absolute—undivided and unlimited—sovereign power (Lloyd, 2014) Hobbes wanted to ascertain the clear values for the construction of a civil organization that would not be subject to destruction from within. Hobbes maintains the ideology that people should look at their government as having absolute authority, while arguing that the government has absolute power he reserves the idea that we have the liberty of disobeying some of our government's instructions. He argues that subjects retain a
John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, following their predecessor Thomas Hobbes, both attempt to explain the development and dissolution of society and government. They begin, as Hobbes did, by defining the “state of nature”—a time before man found rational thought. In the Second Treatise[1] and the Discourse on Inequality[2], Locke and Rousseau, respectively, put forward very interesting and different accounts of the state of nature and the evolution of man, but the most astonishing difference between the two is their conceptions of property. Both correctly recognize the origin of property to be grounded in man’s natural desire to improve his life, but they differ in their description of the result of such a desire. Locke sees the need and purpose of society to protect property as something sacred to mankind, while Rousseau sees property as the cause of the corruption and eventual downfall of society. Although Rousseau raises interesting and applicable observations, Locke’s argument triumphs because he successfully shows the positive and essential effect of property on man.
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?
Hobbes’ theory on the condition of the state of nature, and government are not only more applicable today but his reasoning is far sounder than that of Rousseau. These concepts were significantly conditionally reliant. What Hobbes imagined was not a pre-societal period, rather he ...
In the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau he describes what he believes is the state of nature and the social contract that humans form in civilizations. This discussion mostly takes place in his book called the “Social Contract”. The first area that will be covered is what Rousseau thinks is the state of nature. This will then be followed by what he believes is the social contract that humans enter to live in normal society or civilization. The last portion will be to critic and summarize his findings.
SparkNotes: Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778): The Social Contract. (n.d.). SparkNotes: Today's Most Popular Study Guides. Retrieved February 9, 2011, from http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/rousseau/section2.rhtml
Rousseau’s version of the social contract depends on his characteristics of “the state of nature”. Rousseau once said “Man is born
The opening line of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influential work 'The Social Contract' (1762), is 'man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they'. These are not physical chains, but psychological and means that all men are constraints of the laws they are subjected to, and that they are forced into a false liberty, irrespective of class. This goes against Rousseau's theory of general will which is at the heart of his philosophy. In his Social Contract, Rousseau describes the transition from a state of of nature, where men are naturally free, to a state where they have to relinquish their naturalistic freedom. In this state, and by giving up their natural rights, individuals communise their rights to a state or body politic. Rousseau thinks by entering this social contract, where individuals unite their power and freedom, they can then gain civic freedom which enables them to remain free as the were before. In this essay, I will endeavour to provide arguments and examples to conclude if Rousseau provides a viable solution to what he calls the 'fundamental problem' posed in the essay title.
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.
Hobbes and Locke both present states of nature in which the human race exists prior to, or without the formation of civil society. These states of nature present stark differences between one other that emphasize the different views the two author’s have on the natural human state. The states of nature each give rise to their own distinct and separate reasons for forming a civil society and, consequently, giving up rights in order to form a civil society. I will begin my essay by presenting both Locke’s and Hobbes’ state of nature and outlining their differences. Then I will analyze the ways in which Hobbes’ state of nature may be seen as more plausible, as well as considering some possible objections to Hobbes’ view. Next I will examine Locke’s view and why it may be considered more plausible in addition to looking at some arguments against it. In this paper I intend to argue that Hobbes’ state of nature makes the acceptance of a civil society more plausible, but that Locke’s state of nature presents more plausibility in commonly held views or intuitions people may hold today.
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.