Hobbes, Lockes, and Rousseaus Views of Social Contract - Literature review Example

Hobbes’, Locke’s, and Rousseau’s Views of Social Contract Social contract is a political and moral argument that posits a tacit and explicit relationship between individuals and their environment. It is a turning point in the age of enlightenment and a clear set of foundation for the American political system. According to the theory, people surrender their rights or freedom and submit to different authorities in return for protection (Erckel, 2009, pp. 19). The social contract theory traces origin from early philosophers such as Socrates who notes that people are obligated to form an agreement within their society. These contracts allow promotes peace and responsive co-existence that limit social problems. Conceivably various theories have tried to explain why people would voluntarily give up their natural freedom for various favours. In this light, different theorists have attempted to explain the relationship between conscience and power including Immanuel Kant (1797), Samuel Pufendorf (1673), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762), John Locke (1689), Thomas Hobbes (1651), and Hugo Grotius (1625). Despite the many theorists, the paper focuses on Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke. Rather than going into exile, Socrates in his dialogues is not willing to ask for forgiveness. Instead, he accepts a death penalty since he is obligated to obey the law (Hirschman, 2014, pp. 549). An interesting turn of events even surprises many, eliciting that people are not coerced into the social situation. Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke present differences and similarities in respect to government’s role and the state of nature. Hobbes expanded the idea by writing Leviathan to counter the English civil war. According to his assertions, traditionally people had no government or any form of control. As a result, the powerful and influential had control in society (Binmore, 1998, pp. 112). They controlled all segments of the society, distributed power and expressed different kinds of interest to make important decisions. Once the power was given to the states, the control was relinquished for the sake of protection. Locke and Rousseau expanded the social contract theory by writing a book Principles of Political Right and the social contract respectively (Rousseau & Cole, 2012, pp. 77). In this respect, every government bases action on popular sovereignty. Therefore, the will of people directs power of the state, which is an important tool in managing freedom. Most importantly, all the three theorists bases their ideas on a social contract theory and an obligation by the state to control the power. Thomas Hobbes Hobbes’ perception of social contract comes out in the early modern history England. The power struggles manifested during this period between king’s and monarchs reveals many past eventualities. Evidently, monarchists preferred the traditional authority where they had control while parliamentarians and kings led by Oliver Cromwell found democratic institutions as the right way. In his argument, Hobbes shows a compromise in social contract when he rejects the divine rights of kings while at the same time recognising that political obligations are underpinned in religious constructs. Interestingly, Hobbes rejects the idea that power ought to be shared, but recognises that political authority is circumscribed by self-interest. According to him, the society, politics and morality are all ‘commodious living’ but purely conventional. These factors play an important role in shaping how individuals react to authority problems (Erckel, 2009, pp. 22). Any contract to embody a sovereign authority plays an important role power. Conceivably, this is because nothing is unjust or immoral unless people have a fundamental source of pride. Apparently, the social contract is the most important source of good will that any reasonable person can confer to and appreciate. In the state of nature individuals had a nasty, brutish, short, and solitary life controlled by a few people guided by self-interest. Therefore, without leadership a state can front various fears. Hobbes notes that the absence of rights and control initiates conflict between sovereign states. In this note, Hobbes view of social contract sets foundation for realism theories that regulate social interactions. John Locke Contrary to Hobbes, Locke observes the state of nature as a completely intolerable place that everybody seeks to escape. According to Locke (1632-17040), an absolute authority plays an important role in shaping men’s rationality. Therefore, he uses Hobbes methodological devices to explain the occurrence of different social setups although with a different view. Notably, argument of social contract influences many regimes including Thomas Jefferson and various founders of the United States who had to face different rebellions. In Two treatises on Government, he refutes Robert Filmer claims of divine rights and consecutively presents justifications of a civil government (Mansell, 2013, pp. 112). Based on Locke’s assessment, the natural condition of mankind elevates them into a position of complete perfection and complete liberty. In this respect, anybody has the right to make decisions that he sees fit for a normal life without facing interference from any authority. Notably, this does not mean that the rights should affect what others do or transgress on other people’s perceptions. Natural state has all people equal, and the basis of morality guides one’ ability to confront the pre-moral decisions. Additionally, Locke notes that the law of nature sets pace for God’s precedence on health, liberty, life and other possessions (Erckel, 2009, pp. 39). In this respect, the equality before God does not allow people to take anything or impose any harm on other individuals. Nevertheless, aspects such as private property come into his argument. According to him, a private property comes into being when a person mixes his labour with raw materials. For instance, this makes America a property of outsiders as they contributed to the general developments. The state of nature also guides what one can own according to the social contract theory. Certainly, this is because nature comes from God, and nobody should take more than the perceived rates. In this respect, men are justified to resist civil government authority especially in tyranny situations. Additionally, they have the right and outright obligation to protect themselves against any form of harm. From this perspective, the society graduated from natural law to civil authority under inducements of protection and proper care (Hirschman, 2014, pp. 545). However, the situation can always change in a case that individual resists authority or dissolve the existing government. In this respect, Locke perceives social contract as a two-way system that requires respect and service from all parties involved. Jean-Jacques Rousseau Rousseau remains one of the brightest lights in explaining social contract theory. The naturalized and normative views idealize the social contract theory hence providing a more succinct understanding of the contested model. Based on Rousseau understanding people transited from a state of nature full of quixotic and peaceful settlement. Evidently, this was a time without competition due to the abundance of nature. Similarly, morality was a common gesture, and nobody was inclined to harm another (Morris, 1999, pp. 26). Nonetheless, change came into light as the society changed, and the overall population increased. Division of labour gained momentum, and private property was forced into the society leading to inequality, vanity, competitions, and greed. This led to interventions from different governments and authorities to create fairness and bring back equality same to the state of natural law. Nevertheless, Rousseau notes that, “man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” the conceptual bridge to social contract creates a bridge between present justification and history (Skyrms. (1998, pp. 51). Despite interventions by different authorities, government have changed into mere interest groups where every individual hide behind a cloud of serving the public where personal intentions take precedence. In as much as it is imperative to ignore history, these problems still surface in form of social and economic inequalities. According to Rousseau, humans were generally free and are still free but the consistent developments have changed the shape of activities (Jordan, 2003, pp. 201). Contemporary political systems strain to bring back freedom lost in the past hence bringing into light certain important questions fronted by Rousseau. For instance, how can people live free in a society without succumbing others to force or coercion? In essence Rousseau’s explanation of social contract take the route of ancient philosophers like Hobbes and Locke, who view man as a free element with great equality (Hampton, 1986, pp. 13). In this light, nobody has the authority to rule or subject unnecessary authority to others unless under covenants or contracts such as elections. Collective renunciation of individual rights, furthermore happens when a single body of a common good gets formulated. As understood and agreed by Rousseau every individual as sovereignty and commitment to remit goodness to others without subjecting them to torture or more problems (Hirschman, 2014, pp. 542). This social pact puts into consideration individual will and interest, which to some extent is a foundation to the society. In conclusion, social contract is a theory that attempts to explain different situations in life. Despite attracting interest from different theorists, Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke make a good gesture trough their explanations. Arguably, they share a natural state of nature that subjects no individual to torture, pain, competition or any form of inequality. All the theories believe, in a world of naturality where people were free to make personal decisions regarding their environment. However, contrary to Hobbes, Locke believed authority over the world comes from God. The divine intervention nonetheless does not find any place in Rousseau argument. According to him, everybody has an equal share of the world and any authority only comes into light after an agreement. References Baier, A., 1994. Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Binmore, K., 1998. Game theory and the social contract 2. 2. Cambridge: Mass, The MIT Press. Erckel, S., 2009. Classical Social Contract Theory The Classical Social Contract Theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau Compared. München: GRIN Verlag GmbH. Hampton, J., 1986. Hobbes and the social contract tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr. Hirschman, E., 2014. Social contract theory and the semiotics of guns in America. Social Semiotics, 541-560 Jordan, B. 2003. Criminal Justice, Social Exclusion and the Social Contract. Probation Journal, 198-210. Mansell, S. F., 2013. Capitalism, corporations and the social contract: a critique of stakeholder theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Morris, C. W., 1999. The social contract theorists: critical essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. Richardson, H., 2007. Rawlsian social-contract theory and the severely disabled.The Journal of Ethics, 419-462. Rousseau, J.-J., and Cole, G., 2012. The social contract, and, Discourses. Miami, Florida: Hardpress Publishing. Skyrms, B. (1998). Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Read More