Pros And Cons Of The Social Contract Theory

In terms of the American political system, the most significant of the theories of the origin of the state is that of the ‘Social Contract”. Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, James Harrington, and John Locke in england and Jean Jacques Rousseau in France developed this theory in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

“It is not wisdom, but authority that makes a law.” This is a quote by sixteenth-century, political philosopher Thomas Hobbes who adhered to a “might makes right” aspect of the modern Social Contract Theory. In this “Social Contract Theory, Hobbes, as well as other political philosophers such as John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are to be known as Contractarians. Contractarianism is, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “The political theory of authority claims that legitimate authority of government must derive from the consent of the governed, where the form and content of this consent derives from the idea of contract or mutual agreement.” With this in mind, Contractarians are people who uphold the very sanctity of written, and or verbal agreements based on compromise, and moral stability via a governing body. Alas, what the main issue is, is what are the differences between the Social Contract Theories that these three philosophers espouse, and how do they differ? Furthermore, which philosopher’s theory would I use in a hypothetical situation in which I would be on the committee to develop my countries constitution for, and why would I reject the other two philosophers’ ideas?

Benjamin Franklin once said, “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Indeed, free speech is a large block upon which this nation was first constructed, and remains a hard staple of America today; and in few places is that freedom more often utilized than on a college campus. However, there are limitations to our constitutional liberties on campus and they, most frequently, manifest themselves in the form of free speech zones, hate speech and poor university policy. Most school codes are designed to protect students, protect educators and to promote a stable, non-disruptive and non-threatening learning environment. However, students’ verbal freedom

The current United States social contract is the way a majority of the people live. The majority being, the entire population outside of the rich and famous. While this can be debated person to person, as well as the idea of what the social contract is, I would describe the current United States social contract as a combination of fear and survival. These concepts often can intertwine; however, they can also be distinguished separately. The social contract will continue to evolve as the country changes, as one can see throughout the media and life in general.

Our most basic right, the freedom of speech, is being threatened. Nat Hentoff’s “Speech Codes on Campus” clearly explains the situation unfolding on college campuses and elsewhere across the United States. A speech code is defined as a limitation on specific words that might be found offensive to anyone. This limitation can create some major problems elsewhere that can be overlooked. Some might even argue that speech codes offend the very people that it is trying to protect.

Xavier is not the only school that has experienced racial incidents of white students in blackface. At Kansas State University, Paige Shoemaker and her friend posted a snapchat in blackface and captioned it with racial slurs. When the photo surfaced the internet and was made known to the administration, Paige Shoemaker was immediately expelled (“College Student Expelled over Racist Snapchat”). Similarly, The Washington Post writes on how the University of Oklahoma temporarily suspended a student who sent racial messages that included, images of people hanging from trees, racial slurs and a ‘daily lynching’ calendar to several black freshmen from the University of Pennsylvania (Svrluga). By expelling and suspending students who were involved in racial incidents, these universities show that they do not condone any forms of racism. Xavier should follow the footsteps of Kansas State University and the University of Oklahoma by expelling any student involved in racial incidents. This will assure Xavier’s black and minority students that they are welcomed at Xavier. Expelling students will also act as a warning to other racist students. When other students see that severe punishment is implemented when it comes to racism in Xavier, other students will be less inclined to perform racist acts, hence creating a safe environment for all students. In addition, Xavier should specify a policy of expulsion in its student conduct book to inform students ahead of time that any racist acts

Recently, there has been a lot of discussion regarding free speech on college campuses. Our first amendment gives us the right of Free Speech but many groups retain the ability to censor it within their own organisation, such as in the workplace and in both public and private lower education. I believe that the ability should be extended to colleges and universities (both public and private). Students should have the right to be at school while feeling physically safe. An example of this right being violated because of someone else’s “free speech” was last spring at American University in which bananas were strung up on nooses around campus with AKA (a historically-black sorority) labeled on them the day after AU’s first black female student

As some colleges are consider placing speech codes and regulations on campus because of allegations concerning racist speech and harassment. There are some, such as, Cinnamon Stillwell and Charles R. Lawrence III, who are in favor of speech codes because they consider some of the actions a form of harassment. While others, such as, Harvey B. Silverglate, Greg Lukianoff, and Howard M. Wasserman opposes the codes and regulations because they insist that no matter how profane the speech, it is still protected under The First Amendment. Although there are legitimate concerns for implementing speech codes, these codes should not be placed on their student’s speech because they not only violate The First Amendment, but also promote the administrative abuse of power, along with causing students to self-censor their speech, while teaching them to hide and or suppress their unpopular beliefs.

Free Speech on Campus incorporates arguments in favor of promoting broad speech protections on campus as well as arguments in favor of restricting free speech to protect the learning experience of students. Ultimately, the authors of the book take the side of supporting broad speech protections on campus in that as long as professional character is maintained, all ideas and views, protected by the 1st amendment, should be able to be expressed on college campuses, no matter how offensive or how uncomfortable they make people feel. While those in favor of restricting speech argue that students should be protected from hateful, discriminatory, or intolerant speech as a means of protecting the educational setting, the authors maintain that the

"The current federal system of government in the United States is failing to meet its social contract obligations to the American people." There is nothing closer to the truth than this statement. While some may argue that the government is following the guidelines of a social contract, many aspects of the government have outgrown their britches and taken over.

It would appear that the TF article is seeking an ideal theory that aligns with their staunch ideology. The ontological depth of this ideology holds an interesting component grounded within an epistemology of ignorance. For example, imagine the tax code as being a contract with signatories and non-signatories. This contract, similar to social contract theory, is a binding agreement that attempts to maintain the status quo of the agreements made within the contract. However, I want to pose something entirely different with this contract. I believe this contract has written itself out of formal existence, but continues to have stark ideological/educational effects upon every level of the socio-economic classes. The signatories are conveyed as being consensual and rightly so due to this flipped epistemology.

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

The quality of your individual life would greatly improve in utopia. The burdens you face from corporate monopolies, the overwhelming weight of the devaluation of your currency and the lack of faith in your neighbors to achieve a civilization of peace and mutual respect has taken its toll for too long. Although this sounds as if it was taken directly from George Orwell’s book (1984) itself, the propaganda of a utopian government rule and the current everlasting war breathes as it’s on self-reliant organization today. Weary of the multiple political parties that are emerging every three seconds, we are faced with a question that has been proposed since the beginning of logical thinking. Is it

Social Contract theory is the idea that in the beginning people lived in the state of nature with no government and laws to regulate them. In order to overcome the issues involved in the state of nature, people entered into agreements to protect themselves and their properties. They did this by uniting, rescinding certain rights under the state of nature, and pledging themselves to an authority that will guarantee certain protections. They all agree to live together under those laws and create a mechanism that enforces the contract and the laws that come with it. Some political theorists, such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, have differing views as to what the state of nature is and what should constitute as a social contract. One

On the formation of the Social Contract Theory has a long history, many people have formed Social Contract Theory has made a great contribution. Thomas Hobbes as one of the representatives of Modern Social Contract Theory, his departure from the theory of human nature, to a fictional state of nature as a starting point, put forward the basic principles of natural law, natural rights, and then through the Social Contract Theory, the establishment of his country theory. Thomas Hobbes certain extent, played a significant role, for people to bring enlightenment. But his theory does not apply in all cases; we need to analyze different aspects of different problems. In this essay, I will describe the Social Contract Theory, and explain the problem of how do we get out of the State of Nature raised by Hobbes Game. I explain the idea of cooperation that Thomas Hobbes can give to this problem, and then argue that this is not a satisfactory response to the problem for three reasons.