Strengths and Weaknesses of Social Contract Theory - Coursework Example

Strengths and Weaknesses of Social Contract Theory The social contract is one of the most significant political theories as a result of its standing for the rights and duties of individuals within a state. It is essential to note that this theory was developed during the Enlightenment period when writers such as John Locke and Jacques Rousseau attempted to establish an understanding of how individuals lived in their societies in relation to their governments. The social contract is considered to be an agreement between the state and those subjected to it, over their duties towards one another and how these duties are likely to be carried out. It is through the belief in this contract that many states today have come to be formed, and this mainly through the development of constitutions. The social contract theory recognizes that individuals have their own natural rights some of which they surrender to their governments so that the latter can protect their remaining rights. This paper seeks to show that while the social contract theory has many strengths, it also have various weaknesses, both of which will be addressed. The social contract theory is one which attempts to bring order to the society through the recognition of the rights and duties of individuals and states towards each other. This recognition allows for the development of a constitution which helps in the formulation of laws the protect the rights of individuals while at the same time making it possible for people within the society to recognize their responsibilities not only to the state, but also towards one another (Rousseau, 1762). It is through this recognition that it becomes possible for the government to enforce its authority over the society within its territory and this helps it to protect the individuals living within it. This theory can be considered to be a guideline for governments on how they can handle their responsibilities towards their people, for example, the provision of security as well as ensuring that their people are able to exercise their freedoms without any prejudice. It also recognizes that there are certain situations where individual rights have to be put aside in favor of the good of society especially in situations where individuals are required to pay taxes in order to help the government to fulfill its obligations. Without the social contract, it would be impossible for there to be order in society because individuals would insist on retaining all of their rights and this would cause the development of conflict between them because each would demand that their individual rights be recognized above those of others. To avoid such circumstances, the social contract theory recognizes the authority of the state as long as it fulfills its obligation of bringing order to the society within its territory. One of the greatest strengths of the social contract theory is that it acknowledges the need for consent from the population before a government can attain legitimacy. Consent in this case might be considered synonymous with democracy because consent can, in most circumstances, only be achieved through the active participation of the population. Most democratic states in the world today have developed constitutions that require elections to be carried out regularly so that governments of their choice can be selected. Therefore, following Locke’s argument, one would suggest that consent is recognition of the symbiotic relationship that exists between a state and those people subjected to it (Strauss, 1958). This relationship is normally contractual in nature because each of them needs the other in order to survive and this means that they have to fulfill their obligations before there can be order in society. The social contract recognizes that once a society establishes control over a territory, it becomes a state and the latter is essential in ensuring that this control is maintained because without state control, the society would most likely be in danger. The consent of the people who it governs is necessary for both the legitimacy as well as the authority that the state needs to enforce its role within society (Dugger and Sherman, 1994). Consent is also a means through which individuals within a territory come to accept the laws that have been put in place to govern it, so that even though an individual might not have been born in the said territory, once he enters it, he consents to the laws that have been set up to govern the territory. This consent is essential in enforcing law and order in society because it helps in the recognition by the state that all individuals in the society and territory that it governs are equal. The social contract is the means through which there are guarantees of the liberties and natural freedoms that are enjoyed by individuals. According to Hobbes (1651, p.4) all men have liberty, which means that they have the ability to do as they wish since it is their natural rights. Because liberty is given to members of society by nature, it is an inalienable right because it guarantees them the means through which they can be able to achieve their desires. The social contract means that the state should guarantee that all men have control over their own lives so that their natural rights are not violated. Furthermore, it is a means through which individuals can conduct their activities in a manner that they believe to be right according to their own conscience, in this way enabling them to live freely (Mina, 2005). All individuals in society are born equal in dignity and in rights and that they are free to do what they believe to be right and this is based on a belief that human liberty has its origins in nature and that no man has the right to deny others the right to choose what they want to do with their lives. Therefore, the state has a responsibility towards the people just it requires individuals in society to adhere to their responsibilities to it. However, one of the weaknesses of the social contract theory is that there are instances where states do not seek the consent of their people before governing them (Riley, 2006). This is especially the case in situations where coups that do not have popular support take place and the new government declares its authority over the people and territory held by the state. This creates a situation where it is difficult for the state to fulfill its part of the contract towards the people it governs, especially in situations where it has to use force in order to enforce its authority. When a state finds itself having to use force or coercion to make individuals in society accept its authority, it means that the social contract is has been broken and that the people over whom it governs no longer have a duty towards it. There are instances where the consent of the people is not sought and this creates a situation where it is difficult for the concept of the social contract to be fulfilled, meaning that its existence might be considered to be a fiction. Philosophers such as David Hume state that the social contract is basically a fiction because all states, whether autocratic or constitutional tend to justify their rule through it. He states that the Tories, who essentially advocated for the divine right of kings, justified their stance through the belief that all authority derived from God and since God was the one who selected kings, it was the duty of society to obey the latter (Deese 2010, p.403). He further states that the Whigs, who believed in a constitutional monarchy, suppose that there is some kind of original contract between the rulers and the ruled where the latter had a right to resist the former in case they believed themselves in any way aggrieved through a breach of contract. Therefore, the social contract is normally used by all parties within a political spectrum to justify their stances on different matters and this ensures that the social contract theory is basically a fiction. Another reason why the social contract theory is a fiction is because it does not take into account the different systems of government that exist in the world and the manner through which they interact with the people over whom they rule. In conclusion, this paper has sought to show the strengths and weaknesses of the social contract theory. The discussion has shown that the social contract theory is one which attempts to bring order to the society through the recognition of the rights and duties of individuals and states towards each other. Furthermore, among its greatest strengths is that it acknowledges the need for consent from the population before a government can attain legitimacy. Moreover, it has been argued that the social contract is the means through which there are guarantees of the liberties and natural freedoms that are enjoyed by individuals. Despite these being the case, the discussion has found that one weakness of the social contract theory is that there are instances where states do not seek the consent of their people before governing them. Finally, it has been seen that philosophers such as David Hume state that the social contract is basically a fiction because all states, whether autocratic or constitutional tend to justify their rule through it. References Deese, R.H., 2010. "Hume on government", in Radcliffe, E.S. (ed.), A Companion to Hume. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. Dugger, W.M. & Sherman, H.J. 1994, "Comparison of Marxism and institutionalism", Journal of Economic Issues, 28(1), pp. 101. Hobbes, T., 1651. “The Social Contract.” Leviathan. [Online] Available at: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html [accessed 19 Feb. 2015] Mina, A. 2005, "Emotions and the Moral Life: Kantian and Stoic Norms for Moral Behavior." Eudaimonia : the Georgetown Philosophical Review, 2(1), pp. 24-8. Riley, P. 2006, “The Social Contract and Its Critics.” In Mark Goldie and Robert Wokler (eds). The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Political Thought. Cambridge: University Press, 2006. Rousseau, J.J., 1762. The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right. Adelaide: University of Adelaide. Strauss, L., 1958, "Critical Note: Locke's Doctrine of Natural Law." The American Political Science Review, 52(2), pp. 490–501. Read More