The Pros And Cons Of Social Contract

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

Locke and Hobbes started with a central notion that people with similar “state of nature” would on their own accord come together as a state. Locke believed that individual would not perpetually be at war with each other. He believed humans began with a state of natural characteristics of absolute freedom with no government in site. Hobbes work differs from that of Locke’s because he felt people needed a strong central authority to ward off the inherent evil and anarchic state of man. Locke believed that within the state of nature man would have stronger morals and thus limit their actions. Locke also, credited people with the ability to do the right thing within a group. And the natural rights and civil society where Hobbes differentiated with this by believing that people had to resolve their natural rights and the their were privileges granted by the sovereign. Locke believed the relationship between citizens and government took the form of a social contract, in which in exchange for order and protections provided by institutions the citizens agree to surrender some of the freedoms within the state of nature. This was also, agreed that power of the state was not absolute but exercised according to law. If broken by the state it forfeits and the contract becomes void. This allots for the citizens of the state to have a “voice” and power for change to replace the government with moral obligation by the governed. Hobbes believed absolute power was the price man should

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.

Locke’s adoption of the social-contract theory helps explain why the government was formed, and outlines the responsibilities of both the governed and the governing, in preserving the government through the protection of life, liberty, and property. If these rights were infringed upon by the government, Locke also established that people have the right to overthrow that government, because they are the ones that elected the government initially. Thomas Jefferson emphasized the protection of life, liberty, and property in the Declaration of Independence. This illustrates the influence of philosophers such as Locke on the principles behind the U.S. government, as well as actual documents created during its

A Social contract is an agreement between the people and their government limiting an individual's rights but in exchange offering them protection. The declaration acknowledges ¨That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Declaration of Independence) A social contract is implemented to protect the rights of the people and form a civil society. The government is created by the people and, for this reason, is to serve the interests of its citizens fully. The belief that a government derives its authority from the people, in the form of a social contract, correlates to popular sovereignty established by John Locke. Popular sovereignty explains that if a person through a social contract is creating a government then the government, therefore, derives its power from the people. This ensures that if a person is entering society by consent through a social contract they can withdraw their consent because the sovereignty of government is with the people. (We the People, 17) In addition, to the consent to leave the government people also have the ability to overthrow the government is it ever fails to secure and protect their rights.

His philosophy was that in a state of nature, we are really at a state of war. When people are not contained by an authoritative figure or society it turns into an "all against all"(qtd. in Thomas Hobbes: Methodology). In a personal experience, my class was given balloons and then told that whoever kept theirs by the end of the given minute would be rewarded. What happened next was that without any group agreement the majority of the class began to attack and sabotage each other's chance of winning. This is a great example of how Hobbe's says that people have the need to be dominant and have the upper

Hobbes believed in total subjection to the government, and the order that was established. Without a central power completely in control, mass chaos would ensue. He also described about how no amount of force would be too forceful, for any governing body needed to utterly contain all jurisdiction. Overall, his entire message would be us “selfish creatures” needed to be ruled by the absolute monarchy. John Locke, on the other hand, was day as Hobbes was night.

Hobbes believed that human nature equated to individuals having self interest and being selfish. He believed that men fight for three reasons: glory, competition and diffidence. “They are in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man against every man,” (Leviathan) which makes the human nature “nasty, brutish and short.” That state of human nature that Hobbes proposed is similar to Locke’s state of war, in which everyone is against each other for their possessions. The only reason Hobbes believed societies are formed (the "social contract") and the people within those societies agree not to harm each other is to protect themselves from being harmed by other

A King ruled with a contract between himself and the people, but once the King became King he could not be overthrown and had absolute power over his kingdom. Hobbes believed that a king without absolute power would not be able to rule his people effectively and the people needed him to have complete power over them. Otherwise they would fall back into their ‘natural state of chaos’. According to his own philosophy, Hobbes believed there was no moral structure or difference to human actions, even against one another. That a man could kill another person, or let them live, two vastly different outcomes, yet doing on over the other would not affect his morals in any way. His thinking was in this way due to his belief in the chaos humans would wreak if left to their own devices. He staunchly believed that humans could and would do anything if there were no laws or structures in place to force them into line. In this respect Hobbes believed government with a strong and absolute leader was paramount to a civilized and fully functioning

First, Hobbes believed that humankind was selfish to the core and that the only way to rule humans was under extreme monarchy. He did not think that the people had any right to rebel against said government; seeing as humans in his opinion were evil to the core and only cared about themselves. His views on government were largely shaped due to the english civil war that took place

“To escape the state of nature, then, people must agree to be governed. Hobbes believed that there really is such an agreement, and he called it the social contract” (CRP 181). With this government, equality would be distributed among the people. Hobbes believed that this social contract would make social living and morality possible. This would remove self-centeredness and give rise to obedience. In turn, this would eliminate outbreaks or those who weren’t functional in a societal setting. Hobbes has a great outlook on being governed. He believed this would make society more efficient by eliminating the variations people would bring about. This was very important as there were universal rules instead of people acting on their own impulses and intentions without thinking about others. Not everyone would be that way, but who’s to say if someone wouldn’t do something in the best interest of themselves if it meant more success for them, their family, etc. In a nutshell, perfect duties are more important than non-imperfect duties. What is right or wrong for one person must also be right or wrong for another person.

Hobbes lived throughout the English civil wars of the 1640s which ultimately lead him to the conclusion there would be “no arts, no letters, no society, which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. (p. 50).” That is to say a life without a sovereign is no life at all. Only a strong government (or sovereign), can provide us the security that we need to enjoy life. According to Hobbes if one wanted the luxuries of “commodious living” they had to acquiesce

In the Social Contract theory, certain individual liberties must be limited to protect the broader societal interests. For example, Michigan State University is looking to ban whiteboards because they think that it will help stop students from participating in sexual slurs and racist labeling. In theory, this seems logical because clearly various people have witness hateful messages on the whiteboards of minorities as well as just hateful sayings in general. So, an easy way to eliminate people from being able to write cruel things on the whiteboards would be to take them away. However, if they take them away, who is to say students will not just write mean things on the actual door?

Thomas Hobbes believed that the government should essentially limit itself to the protection of property and persons. Hobbes thought that power derived from the office, not from the people. Things like virtue, social equality, and welfare were not important. To protect themselves and their government Hobbes believed that it was imperative, natural and rational for people to give up some liberty in order to gain security of self-preservation. This is called the Social Contract. The concept of the Social Contract Theory is that, in the beginning, man lived in the state of nature where life was, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (page 619). In this state every

The main expression of the Social Contract Theory is to explore whether there is a legitimate political authority, "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains no." He said political authority in our natural state does not exist, so we need a social contract in a social contract, everyone abandon natural freedom, and obtain freedom of contract; in the process of political participation, only everyone equally renounce all natural freedom, assigned to the collectivity, human beings can get equal