Social Contract Theory by John Locke - Essay Example

Social Contract Theory by John Locke Abstract The paper deals with the issues of social contract theory from John Locke’s perspective. The main points of the theory are correlated with the modern criminal justice system and private security issues. The basic principles of John Locke, such as natural existence of rights among humans, their rights for freedom, liberty and ethical obligations are discussed further on in detail. Key words: social contract theory, human rights, just governments, personal obligations, ethical obligations. Introduction There are many variants of social contract theories. On the basis of the principles of these theories, the Western governments have developed their laws and legal regulations directed on subjection of the citizens to the legal principles directed on protection of their rights and liberties. Consequently, there is an automatic bound between different individuals, who are bound by the social contract principles. In accordance with the principles of the social contract, there are basic duties, which have their roots in the very nature of human beings. The social contract theory is one of the greatest contributions made by John Locke (1690-1986). The American government has taken much from this philosopher’s ideas. Effective power of the governmental authorities contributes much to development of the society: “So while Locke might admit some governments come about by force or violence, he would be destroying the most central and vital distinction, between legitimate and illegitimate civil government” (Frodeman & Mitcham, 2000). John Locke claims that people are closely related to the criminal justice system, because they have their right to represent themselves in the courts. It is relevant to the modern society, when citizens violate the laws they are brought to justice by courts. The main principles of modern criminal justice system are taken from Locke’s principles of social contract theory. From Locke’s perspective the rights of citizens can be outlined in the following phrase: “We give up our right to ourselves exact retribution for crimes in return for impartial justice backed by overwhelming force. We retain the right to life and liberty, and gain the right to just, impartial protection of our property” (cited by Grant, 2000). In such a way, John Locke has concluded that it is natural of people to gain the right to protect their property in return they sacrifice their liberty and the right to just. Nevertheless, John Locke underlines that men have their rights by their nature. Therefore, humane principles of the Bill of Rights and the roots of the American Revolution can be found in the ideas of Locke. These ideas Locke expressed in 1689 in his work Two Treatises of Government (Social Contract, 2009). We can summarize that the main idea is that creation of the civil society occurred in the name of property protection.  Every individual is free and equal in the state of nature. Thus, the Bill of Rights in the First Congress is based on the ideas of initial equality of all individuals (Grant, 2000). Differences between Social Contract theories There are several differences between social contract theories. The only one integral concept between Hobbes and Locke’s ideas is integration of persons to the state. Locke makes an emphasis on a moral bound between individuals. It is relevant to people to be connected to each other and not to harm each other when the matter is about material possessions. Still, the important role of the government is underlined by Locke, because it is the most powerful connecting bound providing defense for people. The government should not be oppressive, it should be better neutral and its main role should be found in people’s protection, their rights and liberties, as well as the right for their property (Social Contract, 2009). Hobbes was leaning towards the greatest authority of the government. Unlike Hobbes, Locke claims that the government performs protective function for its citizens. It is an objective judge it governs on the basis of just powers. Therefore, there is no wonder that Social contract theory developed by John Locke was acclaimed as the most beneficial for further implementation in the American political and criminal justice system, because the philosopher refers to the most popular model of interaction between people. He claims that people own lands, which belonged to God initially (Frodeman & Mitcham, 2000). Nevertheless, Locke limits the amount of property owned by people. He claims that the Nature or God has given rights to people to have property. We should not only enjoy it, but to take care of our property and improve it in the name of the benefits of the rest of the society. From these words expressed by Locke it is clear that the philosopher underlines an invisible but a constant bound between humans and God. Private security issues Therefore, if to correlate ideas of Locke with the issue of private security, it is relevant to clarify and analyze key arguments of Locke. From Locke’s perspective, it is possible to cultivate land, which was not previously improved or owned by another human being or if a current owner does not prevent a larger part of the society from potential benefits gained from land. Ownership is not a critical point for Locke. The most important ability is to cultivate and improve land. Labor plays a greater role than ownership for sure. Thus, private security issues from Locke’s perspective should be protected from external hazards in favor of the society. Society’s welfare is the core issue regulating private security development. Criminal justice issues Moreover, it can’t be argued that there is a constant need to improve humans’ contribution in the social welfare. Honest and productive labor is the first step to reach social welfare. An individual, a human being or a citizen is the main trigger of social relation development and he is the trigger, which can regulate relations between the government and the society. Otherwise there is a no welfare state, there is no just court and there is nothing at all guaranteeing freedom and liberty to the civilians. Therefore, there are ethical and personal implications in Locke’s ideas about the social contract theory: “The natural duties of the social contract are ethically binding upon our federal and state governments, and the human rights flowing therefrom cannot be taken away in whole or in part” (cited by Henry, 1999). Nevertheless, in the modern society courts have rights to predetermine human rights and to make judgments on fairness or relevance of certain actions committed by individuals. Thus, in the modern society individuals have only those rights, which are mentioned in Constitution. There are strict limits, which cannot be exceeded by individuals. Criminal justice system has adopted ideas of John Locke and the main principle of natural existence of human rights is the most important point suggested by Locke. The modern courts are on their way to making fair judgments. Human rights balancing and regulation are of crucial importance. Otherwise an overlapping of human freedom, liberty, moral and ethical obligations occurs. Freedom and ethical obligations In order to discuss another interesting aspect of correlation between freedom and ethical obligations, it is possible to refer to Steinberg (1978): “Rights, of course, imply duties, and those duties fall as much upon governments as individuals. So rights cannot be abolished by governments or even by democratic majorities; they can only be recognized” (Steinberg, 1978). Let us consider this claim as a starting point for further discussion. Really, we have only those rights, which are promoted and obtruded on us by our governments. Where is freedom, then? This question evokes other philosophical considerations. Freedom does not mean to be free or to live in vacuum. Freedom also has limits. Our ethical obligations imply that we would not exceed the limits of freedom of others. In other words, every member of the society has his own freedom. But it is required from all the members of the society that these limits would not be exceeded. Otherwise a confrontation of public, social, personal and many other interests may occur. If to give more detailed answer, we shall memorize that ethical obligations means collective or social obligations, or obligations, which have to be performed by every member of the society. Personal obligations mean living in compliance with ethical obligations. Every individual has to appreciate and respect not only his rights, but also rights of people around him. Moreover, personal freedom should not override freedom of other individuals. Consequently, we should refer to the claim made by John Locke that human rights are given to all individuals by God or by nature. It is natural to have rights and to have a right to protect those rights. Conclusion Thus, governments should play a role of a powerful protector of human rights and not of an authoritarian oppressor or a tyrant. A just government means government, which enforces natural duties and protects human rights thus establishing social contract relationship. The individuals turn into ethical civilians, when they confirm those initial duties as their personal obligations. Moreover, all members of the society should be aware of the fact that it is necessary to respect the rights of others and their freedom as well as it is necessary to respect their own rights and to perform the obligations. Works cited 1. Social Contract. (2009). In The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=117046349 2. Frodeman, R., & Mitcham, C. (2000, Summer). Beyond the Social Contract Myth.Issues in Science and Technology, 16, 37. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001805129 3. Grant, R. (2000, January). The Social Contract and Human Rights. The Humanist, 60, 18. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002324907 4. Henry, J. F. (1999). John Locke, Property Rights and Economic Theory. Journal of Economic Issues, 33(3), 609. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001316348 5. Steinberg, J. (1978). Locke, Rosseau, and the Idea of Consent: An Inquiry into the Liberal-Democratic Theory of Political Obligation. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Retrieved August 29, 2011, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15119797 Read More