Of The Original Contract By David Hume

The word Social Contract theory was first used by Thomas Hobbes to define royal authority. However John Locke who wrote the two treaties on government” in the 1680’s reinforce the meaning of a new social contract theory. In his version of social contract, he stated “men surrendered a part of their right to govern them selves in order to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law”(Foner, 149). In his argument, natural right such as life, liberty and proper play a huge role. According to Locke, Government or political system is form by equal individuals (mainly men of a household). Although men surrendered part of their right to govern to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, they do retain the natural right of protecting of liberty, life and property against any local or foreign enemies. According to Locke and the

Everyone has their own very unique views on everything in the world. What’s right and what’s wrong is a good example of how humanity views different subjects let’s say a man kills another man to protect his family from harm he may see it as okay to do but in the bible it says “thou shall should not kill” so it’s all how you look at it. In this paper I will be discussing the different view point of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on the most basic tenets of classical liberalism. For example the states of nature, the social contracts, and the sets of view of the rights and obligations of citizens and states. My first topic that I will be discussing is the different views of social contracts. It will go in order from Hobbes to Locke then to Rousseau.

Human beings overcame their unpleasant condition, says the social contract theory, by agreeing with one another to create a state. By contract, people within a given agreed agreed to give up to the state as much power as was needed to promote the safety and well-being of all. In the contract, the members of the state created a government to

A major component to the Social Contract Theory is the “State of Nature”. The State of Nature is the conditions us, as humans, have prior to the onset of moral dogmas or doctrines that are

The foundations of law have been set in the ideas of natural laws that are given to us. There are many different theories on how our laws of nature have brought us to develop the social contracts and government of today’s society. John Locke and Saint Thomas Aquinas’s views of how social contracts are developed from natural and eternal laws are both well seated in the belief of God given rights, but differ in the politics of the governments.

This essay will argue how the society dictates the state, as it will be organized into six sections. The first part of the essay provides the opposing argument that the social compact is dictated by the state. In the next section, I will demonstrate why the opposing points are weak and provide my main arguments. The arguments will comprise of how individuals in a society create laws and we collectively can change and implement new laws. The four ways individuals can

Hume also wanted to explain things through a non-theological base. I believe that this is a good way of thinking because how can one higher being, God, really be able to control everything that we as human beings do? I don't think that God can control every single person's actions or thoughts. If you believe in God and religion then that can be a foundation for your life but not necessarily be why we do or don't do things.

Social contract theory is “theoretical tool and a metaphor” (Kelly 2004, pp. 38) designed by John Locke and

Social contract denotes that a government or sovereign body exists only to serve the will of the people because the people are the source of political power that is enjoyed by the entity. The people can choose to give or withdraw the power. Not all philosophers agree that the social contract creates rights and obligations; on the contrary, some believe that the social contract imposes restrictions that restrict a person’s natural rights. Individuals who live within the society gain protection by the government from others who may pursue to cause them injury, in exchange, the citizens, must relinquish individual liberties like the capability to commit wrongdoings without being reprimanded, and they should contribute to making society

To have a legitimate government, the citizens need to have explicit consent as advocated by Locke. In Locke’s view of human nature, the people are free, but they enter the social contract in order to solve minor inconveniences and have protection of property rights through explicit consent. He goes into depth on distinguishing the difference between tacit and explicit consent; his preference of explicit consent to choose a leader is rooted in his belief of maintaining equality by giving every person an active role in voicing their feelings. Locke claims, “explicit consent of a man

While it may be true that, Jean-Jacques Rousseau central idea in The Social Contract needs little explanation considering how it has been well-expounded upon by many scholars over the past 200 years. Nonetheless, this paper will begin with discussing Rousseau’s key concepts, leading to Constants criticisms, to put into clearer comparison in relation to Rousseau.

The original Social Contract tradition has had many authors, but for the purposes of this paper I will focus on John Locke’s work as one political system that might be used by a nation and the problems it entails that would have to be discussed for modern uses. Locke begins by describing a state of nature that entails equality and a state of perfect freedom for mankind to live as they want within the laws of nature (Locke 2009, 370). Locke’s work argues for his view of property, where a man has the right to the fruits of his labor but not to another man’s (Locke 2009, 372). In his view, the government is meant to prevent on man from seeking punishment that is unfit for the committed crime and that people join together for protection for themselves and their property (Locke 2009, 371-372). He argues also that no one man should be in charge and that a democracy should be used instead (Locke 2009, 371).

With these three authors, they all have the same opinion on the social contract. Thomas Hobbes, James Madison, and Plato all believed that having an absolute sovereign is what will make a society the most successful. This paper seeks to point out the distinct visons of absolute sovereignty that Hobbes, Madison, and Plato articulated by unpacking the central premises of each argument, pitting them against each other through comparing and contrasting.

Since the beginning of the modern age, governments and states have existed in order to maintain moral law. Essentially these institutions are for the greater good of humanity. However, little thought is ever given to how humans lived without governments. Each and every person in the modern age is born into a state, and becomes a part of that state regardless of their will. The concept that humans are born into a state is derived from the social contract. The social contract is a voluntary agreement that allows for the mutual benefit between individuals and governments with regards to the protection and regulation of affairs between members in society. Essentially the idea is that citizens will give up some of their freedoms to the government in return for protection of their remaining rights. Throughout history, there have been a number of philosophers that have discussed the social contract and each philosopher has had there own social contract theories. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes was the foundation for social contract theory in Western political philosophy. While The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau was written a century later and inspired political reforms in Europe. Both Hobbes and Rousseau in their theories appeal to the social contract as being needed as a means to control man in society. However, their theories differ significantly on the basis of the state of nature, the phase after man has left his natural state and

Both are powerful forces that contribute to morality. However, Hume concludes that it is the sentiment, feeling, or pleasure that human beings feel that ultimately shape their morality.