More handpicked essays just for you.
Merits and demerits of Hobbes' social contract theory
Determinant of organisation culture
Determinant of organisation culture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Thomas Hobbes’s social contract theory is minimally related to that of cultural relativism. Both deal with human nature and the search for peace. But while cultural relativism is in some ways a noteworthy theory, the social contract theory is the only one of the two that could logically work in an active environment. Cultural relativism theorizes that the best way for different societies to function together at peace is for them to recognize that each culture must be allowed its own system of beliefs. One individual may believe that his or her culture’s belief system is the one true way. Is there any way to absolutely prove that that person’s morals are not correct? Not in the cultural relativist view. Cultural relativism states that no man from a different background can justifiably say that another society’s beliefs are wrong; that other society may believe that his ideas are wrong. The only way to resolve the matter peaceably, as cultural relativism acknowledges, is for societies to recognize their differences without attempting to force their beliefs upon one another; neither will they try to prove each other wrong. They must simply peacefully coexist without interference generated by belief systems. Cultural relativism is perfect in its barest form. Even though many peoples have many different beliefs and many of these people believe that their own moral code is the only true one, who can say which is better than another? This is the struggle that cultural relativism sets out to permanently resolve. It seems as if cultural relativism could bring about natural equality among groups of differing beliefs. After all, no one belief can be qualified (attributed) as being superior or better than any other belief. ... ... middle of paper ... ...t to their supreme authority: the right to determine who is equal among them. With this conception of the theory, anyone could always resolve a situation if it was necessary for the achievement of peace. While both theories have their good points, only the social contract theory can hold up. Cultural relativism seems perfect at first, but the truth is that it goes aginst itself in too many obvious way. No matter what adversity comes along, a new contract can always be put into effect. Although cultural relativism would fail to do so, Hobbes’s social contract theory succeeds in restoring peace to societies. Works Cited Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. Third ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999. pages 20-36. Hobbes, Thomas. The Social Contract. in The Right Thing to Do, Ed. James Rachels. Second ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999. pages 50-58.
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
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have very different views on the social contract largely based on their fundamental views of the state of nature in humanity. These basic views of natural human nature cause Hobbes and Rousseau to have views on opposite sides of the spectrum, based on two controversial speculations, that human is inherently good or that human is inherently inclined towards egotism and perpetual insecurity. Due to his belief that they are of this nature, Hobbes viewed an all-powerful sovereign of a rather totalarianistic nature to be necessary. Rousseau on the other hand, viewed that the sovereign should represent the common will of the people, the sovereign being agreed upon by all constituents. It is my assertion that Rousseau’s argument, although flawed in its own ways, is superior to Hobbes in that it has an answer for the inequalities that may arise in a society by Hobbes’ princples.
Based on this, rational beings would naturally enter into a covenant in which individuals would give up certain freedoms – the right to murder, steal and so on – in order to safe guard against such actions being taken against themselves. This covenant would vest power in an authority above individuals, and would be responsible for dolling out justice. Hobbes’ theory revolves around human’s being rational and self-interested beings. Notably, while a social contract theoretically protects the rights of all, this is not the importance. Each individual is interested only in protecting their own life and property. One of the main issues with contractualist ethics is that it relies on the consent of the governed. Such consent has been argued for in different methods by different philosophers. Some have suggested a very literal version of consent in which consent was a historical reality of early people, but this fails to explain how the theory applies to modern society, as contractual obligations are not
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
However, cultural relativism is not the most satisfactory moral theory. ‘“Cultural relativism implies that another common place of moral life illusion moral disagreement, and such inconsistencies hint that there may be something amiss with relativism. It seems it conflicts violently with common sense realities of the moral life. The doctrine implies that each person is morally infallible”’ (Vaughn 14).
Hobbes, on the other hand argues that justice is needed for people to live together in civil society. He outlines this idea down to human beings in the
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both social contract scholars. Social Contract Theory is the speculation that one's ethical commitments are indigent upon an implied understanding between people to structure a general public (Friend, 2004). Both Hobbes and Locke utilize a social contract hypothesis as an issue of clarifying the beginning of government. Hobbes and Locke are principally prestigious for their showstoppers on political reasoning; Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Two Treatise of Government. Each one contains altogether different originations of a social contract in any case, both hold the focal thought that individuals in a State of Nature would be ready to repudiate their freedom for state security (Kelly, 2004, p. 202). While both
Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss exactly what moral relativism entails, the consequences of taking it seriously, and finally the benefits if the theory were implemented.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.
Culture Relativism; what is it? Culture Relativism states that we cannot absolute say what is right and what is wrong because it all depends in the society we live in. James Rachels however, does not believe that we cannot absolute know that there is no right and wrong for the mere reason that cultures are different. Rachels as well believes that “certain basic values are common to all cultures.” I agree with Rachels in that culture relativism cannot assure us that there is no knowledge of what is right or wrong. I believe that different cultures must know what is right and what is wrong to do. Cultures are said to be different but if we look at them closely we can actually find that they are not so much different from one’s own culture. Religion for example is a right given to us and that many cultures around the world practices. Of course there are different types of religion but they all are worshipped and practice among the different culture.
There are different countries and cultures in the world, and as being claimed by cultural relativists, there is no such thing as “objective truth in morality” (Rachels, 2012). Cultural relativists are the people who believe in the Cultural Ethical Relativism, which declares that different cultures value different thing so common ethical truth does not exist. However, philosopher James Rachels argues against this theory due to its lack of invalidity and soundness. He introduced his Geographical Differences Argument to point out several mistakes in the CER theory. Cultural Ethical Relativism is not totally wrong because it guarantees people not to judge others’ cultures; but, Rachels’ viewpoints make a stronger argument that this theory should not be taken so far even though he does not reject it eventually.
In this paper I will argue that cultural relativism is a weak argument. Cultural relativism is the theory that all ethical and moral claims are relative to culture and custom (Rachels, 56). Pertaining to that definition, I will present the idea that cultural relativism is flawed in the sense that it states that there is no universal standard of moral and ethical values. First, I will suggest that cultural relativism underestimates similarities between cultures. Second, I will use the overestimating differences perspective to explain the importance of understanding context, intention and purpose behind an act. Finally, referring to James Rachels’ “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism” I will solidify my argument further using his theory that
When Hobbes refers to this that is what he is talking about. The state of nature would be awful, due to the four basic needs that every human being needs. “There is equality of need” (EMP pg. 83). Everyone needs the same basic things to survive and those are food, shelter, clothing, and so on. “There is scarcity” (EMP pg. 83). People have to work hard to produce things, even when there is a small supply. Things are not just given to people. “There is equality of human power” (EMP pg. 83). This simple means that even if people are smarter or tougher then someone else it doesn’t mean that they cannot be brought down. The last one is “there is limited altruism” (EMP pg 84). No one can trust anyone besides themselves because others care more about themselves. With every human being having the same basic needs there is not enough to go around. The world would be total chaos; everyone would be fighting over everything. In a world like this no one would win. Without the Social Contract Theory there would be no rules or order and the world would be at war with each other. To get away from the state of nature society must cooperate with each other, when everyone works together more good comes out of it. When it comes down to the social contract
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 is famous for his early and elaborate development of what has come to be known as “social contract theory”, the method of justifying political principles