The Implications of Social Contract Theory for Relations between Individual and State - Essay Example

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY AND THE RELATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL AND THE Introduction The Social Contract Theory is the view that an individual’s moral and/or political obligations are dependent on the contract or agreement between them in forming society (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). It is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory, which Thomas Hobbes gave a full exposition of. After Hobbes, the best-known proponents of this dominant theory within moral and political constructs are John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The social contract theory is often used in understanding and analyzing the conduct of government and state in the current times, and provides a strong justification of the limitation of the power of the state against the citizens, and the corresponding authority of the people to establish a government that will serve the common good and embody the people’s ideals and aspirations. The Social Contract Theory According to Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau Thomas Hobbes’ political philosophy of social contract theory is outlined in the hypothetical State of Nature. In his Leviathan published in 1651, he articulated on a particular theory of human nature that gives a rise to a particular view of morality and politics (Gauthier 1988). He rejects the theory of Divine Rights of Kings, indirectly refuting Filmer’s claim that a king’s authority is invested in him by God, enjoys an absolute authority, in which the basis of political obligation lays in an individual’s obligation to obey God absolutely. Hence, this theory of Filmer, which Hobbes rejects in his social Contract theory, states that political obligation is subsumed under religious obligation (ibid). Rather, Hobbes argued that obligation and political authority are dependent upon the individual’s self-interests of members of society who are taken as equals of the others, with no single individual given an absolute authority to rule over the rest, while at the same time, poses that if society is to survive, the Monarch (Sovereign), must be given absolute authority (Baier 1994). Hobbes describes the human being as exclusively self-interested and reasonable, possessing the rational capacity to pursue his dreams as maximally as possible. He argues that man’s reason does not evaluate their given ends; rather it merely finds the way to the things Desired, describing rationality as purely instrumental (ibid). It is from these premises that Hobbes is able to construct a provocative and compelling argument for why individuals would tend to be willing to submit themselves to a political authority. He explains this through his discussion of the State of Nature, in which he describes as the state of perpetual and unavoidable war and the worst possible situation in which men can find themselves (Braybrooke 1976). However, Hobbes furthered that this perpetual and unavoidable war that man encounters with other men due to their State of Nature is not hopeless because men are naturally reasonable and are able to see their way out through their recognition of the laws of nature that aids them towards escaping the State of Nature and create a civil society. By this reasonability, man is able to construct a social contract that will afford him a kind of life that is more acceptable than the one offered when one is in State of Nature. The requirement of this contract is a consensus to establish society by collectively and reciprocally renouncing the rights that individuals possessed in their State of Nature. In addition, they must give authority and power to an individual or an assembly of persons to enforce the initial contract (Gauthier, 1988). It implies that in order for men to escape from the State of Nature, it is required that they must agree to live together under common laws established for them, and create an enforcement mechanism that will enforce the social contract, alongside the laws that constitute it. For John Locke, the State of Nature is a very different type of place; hence, his claims pertaining to social contract theory and man’s nature of relationship to authority are in turn, quite different as well. His argument on the construct of social contract is within the framework of the rights of citizens to revolt against their king, which is influential to the democratic revolutions that later followed (Gauthier 1990). Just like Hobbes, he refutes Filmer’s claim that political authority stems out of religious authority, tantamount to the Divine Rights of Kings (ibid). Moreover, Locke constructed his own view of the aims and justification for civil government, alongside his arguments of the people having the right to overthrow a particular government. Locke furthered that the State of Nature, contrary to Hobbes’ claim, is a complete liberty to conduct one’s life, and freedom from the interference of others (Gauthier 1990). However, this is not a state of licensing anyone to do as he pleases. Rather, it is a state with morality, but there exists no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions committed against the laws. It is termed as pre-political but not pre-moral, in which all persons are understood and assumed to be equal with one another, and are therefore equally capable of discovering the Law of Nature and being bound by it. The Law of Nature is hence the basis of all morality and serves as the basis for not harming others in terms of their life, liberty, or possessions (Gauthier 1986). It posits that because all men belong equally to God, and because they cannot take possession of the things that rightfully belong to Him, they are prohibited from harming one another (ibid). On the other hand, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argues that the State of nature is a peaceful and quixotic time in which people live solitary and uncomplicated lives and few needs are easily satisfied by nature (Rousseau 1987). As time passed by, these needs begin to grow alongside the means than satisfy them. Thus, divisions of labor were introduced, and leisure time led towards making people compare themselves with others, which later resulted in shame and envy, pride and contempt, and the construction of public values (ibid). The pivotal moment in humanity’s evolution was however constituted by the invention of private property from pure state into one characterized by competition, greed, inequality, vanity, and vice (ibid). It is this invention of private property that comprises humanity’s fall from grace, out of their State of Nature. It is also this construct of private property, which became the basis of the establishment of government and state, which purports to guarantee equality and protection for all people, but in reality, only wishes to pursue the interest of protecting properties and further accumulating more. Rousseau calls it naturalized social contract, which he holds responsible for the conflict and competition suffered by modern society (Rousseau 1987). The Implications of Social Contract Theory in the Relations of the Individual and the State. Hobbes’ construct of the social contract theory emphasizes refusal of the earlier claim about political authority and obligation of subjects to the state, posing a radical opinion. However, his explanation of the State of Nature having the tendency to harm one another gives a state an authority to rule people, but only within the crux of preempting individuals to harm one another, which is the tendency once permitted to live without a state and government. Hence, the Social Contract Theory limits the political authority of the state and refutes the absolute governance of the state whose power is understood as emanating from the Supreme Being. Rather, it gives only minimum power to the state, with an understanding that man needs the state in order to sublimate his State of Nature and disallow him from harming others. In Hobbes’ social contract theory, the power of the state is delimited only within the framework of not permitting man’s State of Nature to prevail. On the other hand, Locke’s arguments of social contract implies the inherent right of citizens to overthrow a government that does not rightfully serve their purpose, which poses a certain obligation of the state to the people, contrary to otherwise beliefs on political authority and obligation. It likewise posits that the will of the people is the supreme will, denoting that in today’s time, states normally have an existing charter, which is considered the supreme law of the land and is the basis of all laws written within it; however, the power of the people stands more supreme than this law. This is an implication of social contract theory in the relations of individual and the state. Rousseau’s arguments in his social contract theory can be described as the most radical of the three, with his understanding of the private property as the source of power and authority of those who own a plentiful of them, and becomes the basis for holding power in the state. This private property, outlined centuries later by Marx as means of production, becomes the strong basis for holding authority and power and taking command in the state of affairs of the government. This construction of social contract theory implies a conflicting position between people who have amassed private property on one hand, and those who have lack of it on the other hand. The people who hold power and command authority in the government are those who belong to the first category, and the latter category is exploited for lack of it. Just like Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau’s social contract theory provides an understanding of the limited power and authority of the state over the people. In his case, he politically analyzed the motives of rulers far from Hobbes’ analysis, more than just refuting the absoluteness of their power, but understanding that such power does not rightfully belong to them with their motives to protect their private property. Conclusion Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have diverse claims of the meaning of man’s State of Nature, which served as basis for their claims of the kind of social contract man must have with his government and the state. However, their arguments of social contract theory remains within the framework of delimiting state power and taking account an assessment of the purpose of governance from the traditional functionalist stance. It reveals that people have inherent power to govern themselves, that absolute power of the state is merely mythological, and that the state’s authority to govern came emanates from the people, who, in the post-modern society is termed sovereign beings as contrasted to traditional regard of them in a monarchial society as subjects, implying limited (or none at all) rights and liberty. References Baier, Annette, 1994. Moral prejudices: essays on ethics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Braybrooke, David, 1976. The insoluble problem of the social contract. Dialogue Vol. XV, No. 1: 3-37. Gauthier, David, 1986. Morals by agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gauthier, David, 1988. Hobbes’ social contract. Nous 22: 71-82. Gauthier, David, 1990. Moral dealing: contract, ethics, and reason. Cornell: Cornell University Press. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1987. The basic political writings. Hackett Publishing Company. Social Contract Theory, 2006. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on June 30, 2008 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/soc-cont.htm#SH Read More