Theory of the Social Contract by Hobbes, Rousseau, Smith and Kant - Coursework Example

Social Contract: Hobbes, Rousseau, Smith and Kant There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings amongmen in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm. Epicurus Introduction The social contract is the primary agreement or contract that forms the basis of social order. As such it is a largely theoretical construct that explains the decision of human beings to surrender absolute autonomy to a government that maintains the rule of law. Although use of the term predates Rousseaus, The Social Contract (1762), it has become a fundamental term in political science and philosophy in the 250 years since its publication. The following brief discussion will outline Jean-Jacques Rousseaus theory of the social contract and compare and contrast that with Thomas Hobbes concept of the social contract. Subsequently, the work of Adam Smith and Emmanuel Kant as it relates to social contract theory and, specifically, the relationship of their work on social contract theory to the work of Rousseau and Hobbes will be considered. Rousseau and Hobbes For Rousseau the social contract is the keystone of civil society. "At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a corporate and collective body...receiving from that act its unity, its common identity, its life, and its will."(The Social Contract, 1.6) Moreover, it is a corporate and collective body that grants equal rights to all, and in so doing, constrains every individual while satisfying each. The social contract is "the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community [italics added]....the alienation being without reserve, the union is as perfect as it can be, and no associate, has anything more to demand..."(The Social Contract, 1.6) Each individual has the right to make demands of another, but only in so much as he would be willing to respond to their demands: "As the citizens, by the social contract, are all equal, all can prescribe what all should do, but no one has a right to demand that another shall do what he does not do himself."(The Social Contract, 3.16) Thus, the social contract grants all citizens equal rights, equal restraints and equal responsibilities. Authority is created by the free association of all within the social contract. Government is only a manifestation of the social contract. According to Rousseau, the social contract possesses an independent existence. The social contract results from the free association of individuals. Having committed themselves to the social contract citizens agree to abide by the General Will. "The General Will is always upright, but the judgement that guides it is not always enlightened," Rousseau wrote.(The Social Contract, 2.6) Government is, "an intermediate body set up between the subjects and the Sovereign."(The Social Contract, 3.16) Government is simply a manifestation of the social contract and laws outline the practical application of the General Will in every situation. According to Rousseau, government is merely a practical expression of the ultimate sovereignty of the General Will established in the social contract. The citizens are bound contractually to one another and the product of this union is the sovereign General Will. The individual has no contract with the government, the only contract is the original social contract: "There is only one contract in the State, and that is the act of association, which in itself excludes the existence of a second." (The Social Contract, 3.16) Thomas Hobbes starting point is that the state of nature is not a Rousseau-like utopia but rather a chaotic, anarchy. A never-ending aggressive drive for might is inspired by the paranoid desire for security. "One cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he has present, without the acquisition of more."(The Leviathan, Chapter XI) Paranoid individuals obsessed with absolute security, cannot help but view their neighbors as predators or potential prey. Individuals cannot help but collide when they are motivated by unfettered desire and paranoia. A state of war is chronic and life is nasty, brutish and short. The inevitability of collision when unfettered desire runs wild leads to Hobbes second fundamental principle. The desire for power is a struggle for security. However, every individual is acutely aware that his neighbour is motivated by this self same unquenchable thirst. Common and infinite appetites create competition when they collide in struggles over limited or mutually desired resources: "Competition of riches, honour, command, or other power, inclineth to contention, enmity, and war: because the way of one competitor, to the attaining of his desire, is to kill, subdue, supplant, or repel the other."(The Leviathan, Chapter XI) Thus, in the pre-social contract state, the state of nature, the behaviour of individuals is driven by fear of their neighbours. Living in a state of nature without benefit of the sovereign authority established by the social contract--men are condemned to endless competition and the fear of death that this struggle entails. According to Hobbes this is a logical development which follows from the first principles of human nature. A concept of human nature leads Hobbes to conclude that men, living in a world without a sovereign authority and free from the threat of coercion will struggle and battle endlessly. Security will never be attained and fear never overcome: A permanent state of amorality and war will exist.(The Leviathan, Chapter XIII) The social contract provides relief from this violent state of nature. It is practical and protective. Ideas of morality and justice follow from the existence of a sovereign power, they do not precede it, Hobbes concludes. Men create a sovereign to regulate social order, restrain aggression and assuage paranoia. The sovereign then devises rules governing civil society and enforces them. It is these acts of the sovereign, a creation of men in society, not solitude that define morality and justice. Thus, according to Hobbes the social contract is an agreement between individuals to surrender their sovereignty. It is an agreement between individuals and the sovereign: Individuals agree to obey the sovereign. A sovereign power is required, and it must enforce just laws, not because justice has any moral or ethical value but because it is the sovereigns only reason for existing. Individuals have, by the social contract, created a sovereign and transferred some of their rights to the sovereign in order to insure a peaceful and harmonious life: The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will. (The Leviathan, Chapter XIII) The behaviour of the sovereign is governed by utility. Ultimately, justice and morality is purely practical regulation of paranoid fear and restraint of desire run rampant. Law and morality require no ideal justification: Their practical value is their validity and their authority is their source, the sovereign who was established by mutual consent to the social contract and acts in the common interest. The social contract is a utilitarian solution to a state of anarchy. According to Rousseau the social contract is a contract between individuals; according to Hobbes it is between individuals and the sovereign. According to Rousseau the social contract is designed to foster civil society with minimal interference with the utopian, state of nature. Conversely, Hobbes sees the authority and punitive power of the sovereign as the key to the power and efficacy of the social contract. Smith and Kant Adam Smith views the social contract as an outgrowth of individuals attempts to satisfy their material needs and desires and foster a division of labor that increases productivity and material well-being. The roots of this division of labor rest in mans social nature, specifically his inclination to interact and organize to achieve his self-interest. As Smith notes, the baker, brewer, and butcher provide foodstuffs out of self-interest (the expectation of earnings and returns on their labor and materials). Exchange, motivated in both parties by self-interest alone, has a mutually beneficial outcome. It is a win-win situation. Each individual pursues a trade or vocation and barters the products of his labour for lifes necessities. Thus, in pre-commercial society their is a social division of labour as many begin to specialize in a vocation which offers the greatest remuneration for effort, and exchange their excess with their fellows: “As it is by treaty, by barter, and by purchase that we obtain from one another the greater part of those mutual good offices which we stand in need of, so it is this same trucking disposition which originally gives occasion to the division of labour.” (Smith, 1986, p 119) The division of labour magnifies, and is exaggerated by, technological innovation. It also encourages individual dexterity and rigorous and consistent application to the task at hand. Each of these factors contributes to efficiency and productivity. According to Smith the ensuing rapid and substantial increase in the supply of goods generates benefits throughout all levels of society. In Smiths model land pays healthy rents and capital provides a growing return. Concurrently, each worker has employment and money to spend. The cost of products drops and "a universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people" comes to characterize society.(Smith, 1986, p 115) Smiths view of the social contract can be viewed as utilitarian: It is practical and materially productive. It is for that reason that people enter into the social contract. Hobbes, ultimately, is also a utilitarian: The social contract is practical and protective. In contrast to Smith and Hobbes, Kant takes an idealistic view of the social contract. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Kant shares ground with Hobbes but, fundamentally, is closer to Rousseau: Hobbes bases his argument on the individual benefit for each party to the contract, whereas Kant bases his argument on Right itself, understood as freedom for all persons in general, not even just for the individual benefit that each party to the contract obtains in his or her own freedom. To this extent Kant is influenced more by Rousseaus idea of the General Will. (“Kants Social and Political Theory”) Conclusions Thousands of years ago Epicurus wrote, “There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made ... providing against the infliction or suffering of harm.” These agreements, this social contract, is a principle concept in philosophical and political debate. As such it has appeared as a flight from Hobbes chronic anarchy; an imposition on Rousseaus utopian state of nature but ultimately the source of the General Will; a logical outgrowth of Adam Smiths division of labor and the desire to attain material affluence; and, finally, as Kants moral ideal, a manifestation of Right. Despite the widely varying approaches to the social contract evidenced in the work of these four political philosophers, the concept of the social contract is fundamental to their theories of government and society. Hobbes and Smith are utilitarians: The social contract is protection from anarchy and a key to productivity and affluence. In contrast, Rousseau and Kant are idealists. They see the General Will and the Right as the expression of the social contract and the moral and ethical foundation of authority. Bibliography Hobbes, Thomas. (1660). The Leviathan. Web. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html. Accessed 15 July 2010. “Kants Social and Political Theory”. (2007). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/#SocCon. Accessed 25 July 2010. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. (1762). The Social Contract. Web. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html. Accessed 15 July 2010. Smith, Adam. (1986) The Wealth of Nations, Books I-III Penguin Books: London. Read More