Weaknesses Of Social Contract Theory

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

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

Constitution. John Locke’s belief of “life, liberty, and property” was the most influence on the American. Beside the Magna Carta, Petition of Rights, and English Bill of Rights, Locke also has a great influence of limit government. Locke’s Social Contract theory was to protect the basic rights of the people, it for the right of citizens to revolt against their king. Social contract is a convention between men that aims to discard the state of nature. According to Locke, the State of Nature is a state of perfect and complete liberty to behavior one's life as one best perceives fit, and free from the interfering of others. Also from Locke’s view of State of Nature, he believes it was given by

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

Hobbes claims authority between a mother over her child as the only authority that logically exists among human beings because the child is weaker than the mother and totally depend on her for survival; a situation that is not the case among adult human beings because some are stronger than others while some are wiser than others, some are fools while others are seriously cunning. However, it is true and possible at the same time that every human being is having the capability of killing any other because the strongest must sleep and the weakest can persuade others to help him kill (Leviathan, xiii.1-2). The real point for Hobbes is that a state of nature could occur in any century if the King’s authority is

Social Contract means the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members. A word that relates to Social Contract is Natural Rights. I think this because Natural Rights are rights that we are born with and a Social Contract are rights that we choose to have that will help us be equal in power. The Social Contract is just like Natural Rights because they both help protect me from bad rulers and powerful people. A word that relates to Social Contract is freedom. I think this because the Social Contract was a way to describe the process of people having a say in things and freedom lets you say what you want without anyone telling you that you can't. Also the social contract you can have the rights you want and just like freedom you can do what you want but still it being

One historically important tradition in social and political philosophy is called "Social Contract Theory." It gives a way of thinking about what it means to be human, raising fundamental questions such as: what is human nature, in itself, apart from society? Are people fundamentally

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both share the common vision of the role of a social contract to maintain order in a state. However, their philosophies were cognizant of a sharp contrasting concept of human nature. This essay aims to compare and contrast the social contracts of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in respect to their definition of natural law. This essay will first analyze the pessimistic Hobbesian approach to the state of nature, the inherit optimistic approach of Locke, and then observe how their definitions directly affect their social contract.

The law of nature essentially forbids humans from committing an act that would be reprehensible to his well being. This left humans to act in a way that was enforced by the a law. Hobbes analyzed both of these human natures and came to the conclusion that the ideal way for humans to exist within a peaceful environment would be be through the law of nature. In order for humans to live by the standards of the law of nature, humans must surrender their rights to a supreme leader (or small assembly)- this surrender is known as a social contract. Hobbes explained that people would would simple put their “Right[s] aside, either by simply renouncing it, or by transferring it to another” The social contract would involve all of the members of society to transfer their power to the all mighty leader. This all mighty leader would have complete control over the society, with no input from the members of societies.

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

Hobbes claims that man has desires for order and security inborn. In order to prevent poverty and suffering, people took a part in a contract. In other words, it is an agreement among people through which ordered society maintained. They willingly leave all their rights and independence to the authority because of the social contract which states obedience. In Leviathan, Hobbes states that “The mutual transferring of right is that which men call contract” (93). On the other hand, for Rousseau, after people began to live together, property is invented and the invention of property means that humanity fall from grace out of the state of nature and people surrendered their freedoms and rights to the society as a whole that Rousseau termed as general will. However, this problem is solved by the social contract. According to The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right, he endeavours to mention that “Find a form of association that will bring the whole common force to bear on defending and protecting each associate’s person and goods, doing this in such a way that each of them, while uniting himself with all, still obeys only himself and remains as free as before”(11). Consequently, Hobbes’ social contract depends on the submission, on the other hand Rousseau’s social contract based on the

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

As briefly discussed above, the scope and character of the subject’s right to self-preservation and its relationship to the Sovereign’s right to punish has engendered long-standing debate among Hobbes scholars. Because of punishment’s pivotal role in Hobbes’s theory of Sovereign rule and the civil state in general, it is essential to assess its character in relationship to the subject’s inalienable right to self preservation detailed in Ch. 21 (among other places). Thus, before a conception of the true purpose of punishment can be reached, one must attempt to determine the extent to which these seemingly paradoxical rights do (or do not) threaten the viability of Hobbes’s artificial commonwealth. In his discussion of contracts in Ch. 14, Hobbes

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).

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