The Social Contract of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Burke - Essay Example

Political Science Introduction The social contract is a logical tool that intends to give a clear thoughtful affiliation between citizens and their government (Cohen and Fermon, p 280). The social contract is also known as the political contract. It states that individuals must come together into political societies through a process of mutual consent, agreeing to follow all universal rules and accept the corresponding duty of looking after themselves and others (Cohen and Fermon, p 281). Some of the world’s most recognized social philosophers include; Locke, Jean Rousseau, Hobbes and Edmund Burke. They all came up with different views concerning political authority. Hobbes supported complete monarchy; Locke supported natural rights and Rousseau spoke of joint self-government in the name of "the general will" (Cohen and Fermon, p 281). This paper will discuss the social contract of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Burke; giving a clear understanding of human nature as viewed by the four philosophers and explaining whether the philosophers think that the congress is a “broken branch”. Question 1: A social contract of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Burke Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes wrote that, in the absence of political law and order, human life would result to be; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short lived (Cohen and Fermon, p 205). This would give all individuals fundamentally the right to everything, and thus the freedom to murder, sexual assault and theft. Thomas Hobbes came up with the social contract whereby individuals came together and surrendered some of their individual rights so that others would relinquish theirs. It meant that an individual Y would give up on their right to kill for another individual Z to live. This resulted in the setting up of a state, an independent body which would create laws to control social interactions. Hobbes preferred a monarchy system. This meant that human life was thus no longer a warfare but peace towards all (Cohen and Fermon, p 206). John Locke John Locke's idea of the social contract was different from Hobbes' in several deep ways. It retained only the central notion that individuals within a state of nature would come together to form a state (Cohen and Fermon, p 243). Locke wrote that integrity linked people together in a state of nature, by The Law of Nature. They could not bring harm to one another in their lives or belongings. He stated that without the government to protect them against those looking to wound or enchain them; individuals would not be secured in their rights and freedoms. They would survive in panic. Locke quarreled that individuals would be in agreement to create a state that provided room for a government which would protect their lives, independence, and possessions of those who existed within it (Cohen and Fermon, p 244). Jean-Jacques Rousseau Rousseau's political theory differs in vital ways from that of Hobbes’ and Locke’s. Rousseau's theory of socialism stands out in his development of the "luminous conception” of the “general will” (Cohen and Fermon, p 2). In his easy of the social contract, he said that it was the foundation of political rights based upon unlimited popular dominion. Rousseau argued that liberty would only be achieved where there was direct rule by the citizens as a whole in lawmaking. This was because of the popularity of sovereignty being inseparable and absolute. Rousseau also maintained that the individuals were not familiar with their "real will," plus that an accurate society would not be born until a prominent leader arose to create new standards and ways of the individuals, he thought that this would be best achieved if a planned use of religion would be introduced. He termed the consummate leader as “the Legislator” (Cohen and Fermon, p 280). Edmund Burke Burke unlike Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau; spoke against democracy. He thought though it would be desired by many individuals in most regions, in his country Britain; he stated that it would be incept and harsh to the citizens (Cohen and Fermon, p 349). He thought that common people had treacherous and mad passions that could easily be awaken if they were granted the right to vote. He also panicked of the rigid impulses that could be empowered by these obsessions would weaken cherished traditions and the established religion, leading to violent behaviors and taking away of property. He was convinced that individuals desired to be ruled and controlled; this was the basis of their social structure. Since largely united by divisions of social classes, he thought it was best for a monarch system of administration. Part of a social accord would set individuals to diverse classes that would act to benefit every party involved (Cohen and Fermon, p 350). Question 2: Understanding of Human Nature Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes believed that human beings are physical, sophisticated objects whose actions can only be explained in mechanistic languages. He observed human actions to be needs and appetites that come about inside the human body and are felt as discomforts or trouble. They should be triumphed over (Cohen and Fermon, p 205). According to him, individuals needed to be aggravated to do something in such ways as we think can ease their discomfort, to protect and endorse their own well-being. Everything people wish to do is firmly determined by their natural preference to alleviate the physical pressures that intrude upon their bodies. Human wish is nothing but the determination of the will by the strongest current need (Cohen and Fermon, p 206). John Locke Lock wrote that because God created all human beings, then we all belong to him. He states that we are all His property (Cohen and Fermon, p 253). He says that their chief reason in this world is to survive. He wrote that no one is permitted to destroy another person’s life because they are all inferior to the one who created them. The law of nature governs this, which obliges everyone that all beings are equal and independent; no one ought to hurt another in his life, health, independence or ownership. He explains that the law of nature is exposed with reason. He makes the point pertaining to the law that it commands what is best for individuals. If it did not, he states, the law would disappear for it would not be obeyed (Cohen and Fermon, p 254). Jean-Jacques Rousseau Hobbes stated that man is wicked because he has no idea of goodness. Rousseau theory condemns this saying that man has uncorrupted morals that flow in his state of nature. He believes that humans if "in a state of Nature" may perform with all of the rage of an animal (Cohen and Fermon, p 296). He believes that they are best only in a negative sense, and as far as they are self-sufficient and thus not focus to the boundaries of a political society. Rousseau's thought that a natural man can virtually be compared to a lonely female chimpanzee; the "natural" goodness of humanity which is neither admirable nor inadequate. Rousseau proposed that; except perhaps for a brief moment of balance, at or near its beginning, when a relative fairness among men succeeded, human civilization has always been false, creating disparity, jealousy, and unnatural needs (Cohen and Fermon, p 298). Edmund Burke Burke’s theory of explaining human nature state that human beings put things as the way they are. He defines human nature in terms of reasoning and tastes. Hey says that humans tend to vary in their reasoning and pleasures (Cohen and Fermon, p 572). He found individuals in their quarrels continually appealing to certain standards and tastes, which are accepted on all sides. Burke says that all individuals concur on basic sensations of tastes that invent a common standard of goodness. He says that a human has a nature of pointing out something beautiful when they see one. When men are asked to give the taste of honey, they say honey is sweet. However, he attains that the “natural, human” capacity of taste and appreciation of beauty and goodness must be cultivated and developed (Cohen and Fermon, p 573). Question 3: View of whether the Congress is a broken branch According to the four thinkers the congress has seized to be a purposeful governing body (Cohen and Fermon, p 570). I tend to agree with all of them because the congress is now facing serious policy issues. The representatives no longer have the basic respect and desire to debate issues. They spend a little time in congress, have slight view of a systematic balances and checks, and just allow presidential arrest of influence. It has recently been caught in the midst of big-money lobby list, and it seems incapable of carrying out its intended duty. It is filled with dictatorship and corruption issues that have made it more focused at covering their illegal businesses than playing its legislative part; the congress in now relying on massive infusions of money to run their elections (Cohen and Fermon, p 575). Conclusion The idea of the social contract has been vital in the development of human life. It has been one of the signatures of modern political thought. Hobbes advocated for a monarch system of governance. Locke maintained that individuals within a certain region would come together to form a state but under “The Law of Nature”. Rousseau argued that democracy would best be achieved through direct rule by the citizens, and finally, Burke thought that democracy would harm his country Britain. He attained that a monarch system would serve them best. All their ideologies have been adopted by many regions all over the world that felt that a particular ideology would best suit them. Work Cited Cohen, M. and Fermon, N. Princeton Reading in Political Thought. New Jersey: Princeton University Press 1996. Print. Read More