Hobbes and Rousseau Can Be Categorized as Social Contract Theorists - Essay Example

Social contract By Social contract is a theory that suggests that people’s moral and/or political stands are dictated by a contract or some form of agreement among them to establish a society in which they ought to live. This theory forms the bases of two different but exiting theories from two proficient philosophers. (Freeman, 2007). Thomas Hobbes theory came about during a civil war brought about by antagonism between two powerful fronts, each of them claiming the right to wield more power than the rival group. Hobbes represented a compromise between the fighting groups arguing that, political authority and stands should be based on the personal interests of society members. According to him, they needed to understand that they are equal to one another, and none of them is invested with him any authority to govern the rest. He however held onto the conservative position to respect the monarch. He called it the Sovereign, and it was supposed to be ceded absolute authority to ensure the survival of the society. (Freeman, 2007). Hobbes published his philosophical brilliance Leviathan, in 1651. In it was the theory of human nature. This theory gave a new outlook on their moral and political decision-making. This psychological theory is inspired by mechanism. According to Hobbes, the general observation that everything on the earth originates from matter in motion also extends to human behaviour. According to his view, human beings, including all of their actions and choices, are explainable in regards to universal laws of nature, the same way we link these laws to the motions of extra-terrestrial bodies. Rousseau on the other hand had two social contract theories. One of the theories stems back to an essay he had written, Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men, now famously known as the Second Discourse. It is an archive of the gradual moral and political change in human beings, i.e. their evolution from the State of Nature to present-day society. In it is his naturalized account of this social contract, which he terms as very troublesome. The second is the normative theory of social contract, designed to provide ways to eliminate or reduce the problems that present-day society has brought onto us, as shown in the essay, Second Discourse. (Freeman, 2007). According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the period of State of Nature was tranquil and serine. People lived solitary, stress-free lives. However, with time, humanity experienced certain changes. As the population increased, the methods by which humans could satisfy their basic wants had to change. A series of changes took place until they introduced private property. At that stage, they started to experience initial conditions of inequality. Some owned property and the rest were forced to work for them, and the seeds of social classes planted. In the end, those who owned property noticed that it would serve their best interests to set up a government institution, with the aim of guarding private property from those without but still can see a way of acquiring it by force. (Rousseau & Tozer, 2008). These privileged individuals establish a government, through a contract, which guarantees fairness and protection for all. Need-less-to-say, however, its true agenda is to cement the very inequities that private property has fuelled. Simply, the contract, which purports to serve the interests of everyone in equal measure, is actually meant to further benefit the few who have grown stronger and richer from the developments of privately owned property. Rousseau refers to this as the naturalized social contract, and in his view, is the root cause of the antagonism and competition being experienced in modern society. Hobbes’ theory is somewhat different in his theory of human nature. The theory infers that men are necessarily and by nature, self-interested. All men go after only what they think to be their own personally considered best interests. They are naturally drawn to their desires and repel that which they are averse. Hobbes also claims that humans are reasonable. They possess the rational capacity to follow their desires efficiently and effectively. According to Hobbes, political obligation is justified by the fact that since humans are naturally self-interested but also rational, they will opt to submit to an authority of a Sovereign so they can dwell in a civil society, that is suitable to their own interests. By being reasonable and observing the rationality of this simple precept of reason, humans will have to establish a Social Contract that secures their life, other than face the harsh State of Nature. Simply, to keep away the State of Nature lifestyle, humans must all agree to live in harmony under common laws, and establish an enforcement mechanism for this social contract and establish the laws that enforce or guard it. (Morris, 2009). From what I gather from both theories, they seem to explain how people’s moral and/or political stands are dictated by a contract or some form of agreement among them to establish a society in which they ought to live. However, each of the theories seems to give a different account of the real purpose of setting up governments. Hobbes form of government was set up with an aim ensuring peace; the members of a society and correcting injustices brought about by people who think they were naturally selected to govern others collectively do ensuring control of the government. He claims that creation of a government is the best solution to avoid human conflict because no matter how self-centred humans are, their ability to reason helps them understand that it is more important to create an environment that is conducive for peaceful existence. The limitation of this theory is that it fails to explain why the rich get richer and the poor drown in misery, despite their being a mechanism to ensure equitable distribution of power. (Hampton, 2006). Rousseau on the other hand acknowledges that the problems that we face today are because of population increase and the struggle for the few resources available to us. He then goes on to observe that a few individuals went on to accumulate much more wealth by exploiting others efforts very early in human development. They also realised that they needed to keep that wealth to themselves because of the influence they had over others now. They then went on to form government. In his eyes, government partially serve the interest of the whole community, but only a small number of people actually benefit from it. This is also the weakness of the theory. In my view, this is the best approach on government, as we know it today. However, something both philosophers have in common is the belief that all men were brought into being as equals; therefore, none of them has naturally appointed to govern others. Thus, the only justified form of power is the authority that comes from making agreements or covenants. Therefore, Social contract is a theory that suggests that people’s moral and/or political stands are dictated by a contract or some form of agreement among them to establish a society in which they ought to live. This theory forms the bases of two different but exiting theories from two proficient philosophers. A series of changes took place until they introduced private property. At that stage, they started to experience initial conditions of inequality. Some owned property and the rest were forced to work for them, and the seeds of social classes planted. References Freeman, S. R. (2007). Justice and the social contract: essays on Rawlsian political philosophy. New York, NY [etc.], Oxford University Press. Rousseau, J.-J., & Tozer, H. J. (2008). The social contract: or, principles of political right. Ware, UK, Wordsworth Editions Ltd. Morris, C. W. (2009). The social contract theorist’s critical essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=18604. Hampton, J. (2006). Hobbes and the social contract tradition. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Pr. Read More