The Greater Power of Politics Is within the Grasp of the People - Essay Example

?Gabriel Garcia Mrs. Brown English 12 3A The greater power of politics is within the grasp of the people. In this essay, the relationship between authority and morality in context of rights will be examined in order to establish the most useful set-up for a society. Through this examination of ideas, a conclusion may be established regarding the ideal form of government to be in charge of society today. We may observe here that the Hobbes social contract eventually ends in a dictatorship of the Leviathan. The classical contract traditions of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have enjoyed the status of being pioneers in the development of liberal democratic theory and practice. The contract tradition gives verdict regarding what is natural and what is non-natural. Difference of thought among the three authors is most of the time overlooked due to the practice of grouping them together. The “Social Contract” as a theory was written in the 17th and 18th century. This theory advocated four important points. Firstly the state exists to serve the will of the people. Secondly people are the only source of government power. Thirdly the people are free to accept or refuse to give power to the government. Finally the document advocates for limited government, individual rights, and popular sovereignty. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were very prominent personalities, and both had a tremendous influence on the future of England. Despite these common personality traits, some of their beliefs are very different. For example, Hobbes believes that politics is based on the desire of power and the fear of death. He wants to create a powerful state and called it “Leviathan”. (“A government to protect the people from one another to keep them in fear”) In the “Social Contract” Hobbes suggests that men should give up their rights to an authority to act for them, on their behalf. He said that sovereign authority had to be absolute in order to prevail over the fear of death in state of nature. From this it is clear that only reason for existence of the governments was the safety of the people. There are some strange and unusual statements regarding what is natural, what is non-natural and what is merely manufactured by humans. Thomas Hobbes writing is one of the most profound and influential political literature ever written. His Leviathan was written at the time of the English Civil War. The impact and result of Civil War had greatly influenced the ideas of Hobbes. He saw the power of the people in the war therefore he argued that the government’s power comes from consent of the people. This idea was widely used in the American Revolution. Thomas Hobbes begins his argument by stating the nature of humanity. No human is perfect and combination of different aspects. One man can be better in some regard than another man but in the end, their positive and negative aspects combine to make them equal. In the state of nature this equality brings fear to men. They begin to suspect and hate one another, which put them on the path of war. When men are at war morals, principles and fairness evaporate. The absence of a central governing authority compels men to act according to their own understanding. Hobbes states three main reasons that force a man to war: Competition, Fear, and Glory. "The first, make men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third for reputation". War goes on for a long time without any logic or reason. No matter how successful a war may be, there are always losses. In addition, if man is always at war, he loses civilization, resources, time, culture, and ethics. He starts depending on animal surviving instinct, always keeping his guard against any other man. All the war is for the safety and life but it is the fear of death which prevents men from constant involvement in war. There is little time for building and civilizing the world or to enjoy life and resources won in the war. The state of being in constant war, or fearing that there is war, takes up a lot or all of the time. In this state of chaos, where lives are in unending danger, one realizes that it is in everyone's best interest to make a contract to assert peace, maintain a nominal morality of regarding human life, keeping promises made, and obeying the laws of the society. These Contracts are common transferring of rights between two parties. There is lot of variety in this mutual understanding. They can be regarding peace between two quarreling parties, with demands and peaceful sacrifices from both ends, to an agreement between two merchants for goods and services. Hobbes goes further by showing different kinds of contracts such as agreements, and Natural Laws that are kept with contracts. He also argues that social contracts develop our way of lives, by developing peace and introducing morals, laws, values, and the development of humanity and civilization starts. In order to enforce such contracts, Hobbes advocates imposition of harsh penalties on those who refuse to obey the laws and/or break the contracts. Hobbes is very careful in pointing out the distinction among 'right of nature', 'law of nature' and the nature of the 'contracts' deriving there from. But the contracts originating from the laws of nature becomes void unless there be a sovereign, a 'common power' to supervise obedience of the contracts by inculcating fear into the hearts of those who would try to break their sides of the contract; in so doing create injustice, which is no more than the not performance of covenant. Hobbes mentions three causes for war in the state of Nature but he fails to mention that why men goes at war if they are equal. He starts his argument by stating that all humans are equal and this is the cause of fear and hatred. From this he gives a very negative assertion about human nature. The reason for this may be England Civil War. He is of the opinion that human life in the state of nature was full of misery and strife. This argument is a sweeping statement in a sense that equality among men could also promote love and harmony. In order to advocate for a central authority Hobbes presents humans as negative by nature, who need a central authority in order to run the affairs. Hobbes mentions the brutalities and negative effects of war on human life and thinking. The question which comes to mind that how can man think of any positive in state of war when he was not thinking this in state of peace? If man by nature is negative then how he surrendered his rights? It is true that unequal distribution of power has created many problems for different societies. In all the cases the main reason for unjust power distribution is the fact that central authority or government failed to implement justice. This failure has forced thinkers and philosophers to look at ways and means to improve the situation. Where Hobbes saw nothing else but brutal human nature responsible for creation of state another Englishman came on the scene to refute this view. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke created two separate theories in which the concept of a social contract is used to determine the ways in which a government can govern without compromising on justice. The basic difference between these two writers is regarding human nature. John Locke wrote two Treatises of Government. One is a theory of political or civil society based on natural rights and contract theory. The Second Treatise outlines a theory of civil society. John Locke starts by describing the state of nature, a picture much more secure than Thomas Hobbes' state of "war of every man against every man," and argues that God creates all men equal in the state of nature. Therefore, any government that rules without the approval of the people, in theory, is overthrown. John Locke was, in my own opinion, one of the most civilized of the intellectuals of his time. His Two Treatises of Civil Government are great testimonials to his intellectual brilliance and honesty. He starts Book 1 with a consideration of the rationality of slavery, and Sir Robert Filmer's apologia for despotism. He concluded, contrary to the general inclination of the era, that both slavery and despotism were unthinkable debasements of human nature and rationality. Locke carefully examined the views of Sir Robert, and asked fundamental questions regarding religious, moral, political, economic, cultural and natural foundations for the assumption that humans were destined to either divine ruler ship or slavery. John Locke understood human nature as one of ideal freedom to arrange their actions, and dispose of their belongings and persons as they think well, within the limits of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. The state of nature that Locke describes is one of "equality, wherein all power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another" (p. 118). Without shadow of doubt it not a state of "license", it is a state in which "reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it" (p. 119). Locke goes on further to discuss what consist of a serious theory of punishment, based on reason and derived from law of nature that categorically binds humans everywhere. If John Lock is compared with Hobbes it becomes clear that Locke was almost an optimist on the subject of human nature and the goodness and rationality innate to that nature. Locke gives a very detailed assessment of the beginning of civil government; for he examined the fact that children and infants are not forced to remain in the commonwealth, except for as long as they are minors. The third name in the field of “Social Contract” is Jean Jacques Rousseau. He started the Social Contract with the assertion that human beings are born free but it is society which enslaves them. This freedom is inborn, unchallengeable and fundamental. It is universal to all humanity. Although freedom is so widespread by nature but still humans find themselves in chains and bonds. The state of natural freedom does not exist in society. Humans lose the natural freedom with which they are born and have only a thought of real freedom. Rousseau says, “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and remains a greater slave than they remain”. (p. 181) Every person in the society surrenders his freedom and rights to general will. This arrangement is done in order to get part of the whole. The whole is betterment of the humanity and society. This act of surrender creates a communal and a united body replacing individual personality. The society gets its identity and will from this act of combined surrender by all the members. (p. 192). This social contract can be cause of bother for some, who may not fully understand the importance and benefits of submitting to an authority. In order to make them obey the law the possibility of using force is present and as a result 'renegades' are 'forced to be free' or forced to obey the laws that they have freely made for their self-protection (p. 195). Usage of this force is not an evil because it ensures that greater evils do not come and take over individuals as well as state. The ability of the state to protect the freedom and rights of individual enables it to exert more authority and more pressure on those who are not willing to comply. Social contract theories presented by three different thinkers have one thing in common that it was fear of protecting rights, which forced humans to form a society and state. They differed regarding nature of humans. For Hobbes man by nature is negative while Lock believes in positive nature of man. For Rousseau state is lesser evil than greater evils and therefore acceptable. No single theory is complete in itself and no theory has historical evidence to support the claim of state of nature yet they all help us in understanding the importance of state and rights. It is important for human development and right to have a state. Ideal individual freedom is impossible and society without state will be nothing else but total anarchy and destruction. References Thomas Hobbes (1651). The Leviathan. Reference here is to "An Egoist's justification of unlimited monarchy". Reading 26 in Alston, William P. and R. K. Brandt (Eds.) (1974). The Problems of Philosophy. 2nd Ed. New York: Allyn and Bacon Inc. pp. 263-274. John Locke (1620). Two Treatises of Civil Government. New York: J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1762). The Social Contract and Discourses. Translated with Introduction by G. D. H. Cole. London: Everyman's Library (1913). Read More