Original Contract - Hume - Essay Example

Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Original contract (Hume) Hume argued that if the government can be traced to its basic origin from woods and deserts, it would mean that people are the main source of power and jurisdiction. Therefore, people voluntarily abandoned their respective native liberty to promote peace and order which clearly indicates that people accepted laws both from their equal and companion. It is quite clear that Hume supports the ideas of Hobbes on the right of nature or liberty as most writers refer it. Hobbes argued that each has the liberty to make use of own power according to how his or her will dictates in order to preserve own nature or life. From Hume’s point of view, it means that the conditions in which they became willing to submit must have been expressed or made clear and obvious to make superfluous expression. In such a case, Hume argues referring these possibilities to the principle of original contract that it cannot be doubted that every government is initially established on contract basis. Thus a number of the ancient rude social systems of mankind were entirely developed through this principle. Hume also pointed out that the contract through which government is established is perceived to be the original contract and is expected to be too old to collapse under the knowledge of today’s generation. This implies that all the present governments or those that have made record in story must have been established originally based on usurpation or conquest and not through voluntary subjection of people. To this end, it is relevant to argue that Hume seem to disagree with the ideas of Locke that it is from the institution of the Commonwealth that all the rights and powers of its members are derived through whom the sovereign power should be conferred by the permission of individuals assembled. Hume says that it is in vain to conclude that all governments are or must have be initially founded on the basis of popular consent, provided the significance of human affairs admits. According to Hume, human affairs will in place admit of this consent, given the seldom of its appearance. However, through conquest or usurpation which involves applying force to dissolve the ancient governments should be considered as the origin of all the new governments formed across the world. It should be noted that when new governments are established regardless of the means adopted, people become dissatisfied with it and thus their obedience is developed out of fear and necessity than it is supposed to be from the idea of allegiance or moral obligation. From Hume’s argument on originality of governments, it can be noted that asserting that all governments formed lawfully arises from people’s consent is giving them more honor than they actually deserve, expect or desire. On the Relationship of Theory and Practice in Political Right (Kant against Hobbes) Kant noted that the contract of forming a civil constitution is considered to be of exceptional nature compared to most contracts formed by a large group of people who unite to establish a society. This is because it is different from other contracts in terms of how its constitutional principle operates. Basically, in all the social contracts, it is common to find unions of people who have shared goals. However, Kant argued that a union which focuses more on its primary duty within all its external relationships among the human beings that can mutually control themselves from influencing one another or aim at what it ought to share at the end can only be established in a society that constitutes a civil state such as commonwealth. Locke also made his investigation on the rights of the Sovereigns through institution where he discovered that a Commonwealth is instituted when a large group of people make agreement that every one shall have the right to present every person of the institution. Kant seem to support the ideas of Locke that it is from the institution of the Commonwealth that all the rights and powers of its members are derived through whom the sovereign power should be conferred by the permission of individuals assembled. Therefore, the concept of external right is adopted from the concept of freedom through mutual external relationships among human beings. Thus, it cannot be linked to what people plan to achieve at the end, for example, achieving happiness. This means that achieving happiness should not be considered as a determinant factor when introducing laws that govern external right. In this case, Kant makes it clear that public right should be used as distinctive quality of external laws that retain people to live in harmony with each other in a given society. People differ in their perception on the empirical end of happiness as well as what it entails. Therefore, individuals try to avoid being subjected neither under the influence of common principle nor under the external law that may force them to harmonize with the freedom of all the people. Kant emphasized that a civil state can only be regarded as purely lawful state if priori principles such as the freedom of each member is recognized as a human being, the equality of every member with the rest of other people as a subject and the independence of each person in the commonwealth as a citizen are highly respected. In addition, Kant mentioned that these principles cannot be compared with the laws required in an already established state, arguing that a state can alone manage to establish its own laws where pure rational principles associated with external human right are highly valued. From these ideas on what is regarded as pure and lawful state, it can be noted that Kant agrees with Locke that the sovereign power of every member of a Commonwealth cannot be forfeited. Locke mentioned that since the right of representing the person of all members is given to each one, cases of breaching the contract or agreement by the sovereign cannot be happen. Kant’s position on the relationship of theory and the practice in political right as opposed to Hobbes is the more convincing. Based on the above three principles that identifies a purely lawful civil state, Kant states that a person’s freedom regarded as human being is a principle for a commonwealth constitution which can be expressed as nobody can compel the other to be happy in relation to his or her conception of other people’s welfare. This means that each person can seek happiness by all means that pleases him or her, provided that particular person does not infringe on the freedom of other people to achieve the same goal that can be reconciled with the freedom of all the people in a practicable general law. Secondly, Kant suggested that a person’s equality being regarded as a subject can be viewed as each member in the commonwealth should have the rights of coercion shared throughout by all the people, except in cases where the head of state is involved. This is because each person alone cannot be considered as a member of commonwealth, but also its creator who has the authority to coerce others without necessarily being the subject to coercive law himself. However, it should be noted that all the people who are subjected to the law are considered as subjects of a given state, and thus such members are subject to coercion rights on the same levels with the rest of other members of a commonwealth. The idea of equality of people as subjects within the commonwealth provides the view that each member of a commonwealth should be entitled to achieve whichever rank that a given subject can manage to attain out of his or her talent, industry or own good fortune. Lastly, the independence of a commonwealth member as a citizen is a principle that has been viewed by Kant as a co-legislator on the ground that in the actual legislation, people considered as free and equal under the current public laws can be taken to be equal though not depended upon as the right to make such laws. However, individuals who are not entitled to the right and as the members of commonwealth are obliged to comply with those laws. This implies that such people are also entitled to enjoying their protection not as the citizens, but as the co-beneficiaries of that protection because all the rights are dependent upon the laws. Therefore, it is important to emphasize that an individual will should not be used to legislate for the commonwealth because freedom, equality and unity of willingness among all members is required. In this case, it is important to mention that independence is the prerequisite for unity because it facilitates the general vote where freedom and equality are made available. Kant concluded that the basic law that can be adopted only from the general or united willingness of the people is referred to as original contract. It is a means through which a civil or completely lawful constitution and commonwealth can only be formed. However, it should not be assumed that the original contract though established through the coalition of the wills of individuals within a state to form the commonwealth, can the public will exist for sake of rightful legislation. It is quite clear from the above discussion that the principle of happiness has negative impacts on the political right just as it is regarded in morality. Works Cited David, Hume, ‘Of the Original Contract’ [1748], extracts from: Knud Haakonssen (ed) Political Essays (Cambridge University Press, (1994) 186–97. Immanuel, Kant, ‘On the Relationship of Theory and Practice in Political Right’ [1793], extracts from: Hans Reiss (ed) Kant’s Political Writings (Cambridge University Press, 1970) 73–87, 194 (16p). John, Locke, ‘Two Treatises of Government’ [1690], extracts from: Peter Laslett (ed) Two Treatises of Government: A Critical Edition with an Introduction and Apparatus Criticus (Cambridge University Press, (1967) 286–90. Thomas, Hobbes, ‘Leviathan’ [1651], extracts from: Richard Tuck (ed) Leviathan. Cambridge University Press, (1996) 91–2. Read More