Social Contract Theory - Assignment Example

Social Contract Theory - Social contract theory suggests that people enter into society as fully formed individuals to satisfy their pre-social needs. Thus the state is always regarded as a necessary evil. Discuss how this idea is mapped out in the political philosophy of KANT. How does Hegels position differ? In answering this question please feel free to refer to other Social Contract thinkers you have encountered on this branch of philosophy Social contract theory describes and justifies the powers of a community to dissolve a government when it imposes restrictions on the freedom of the people. This theory has an important historical base and illustrates the “political and moral obligations” of the people of a community towards each other. This theory describes a problem and attempts to provide a solution. The problem is that human beings are by nature unsocial and do not feel the inclination to build and stay in cooperative societies. The solution to this is that human beings agree by contract to stay together in a society and be civil and helpful to each other. This society will be regulated by a governing body which the members of the community will select. From this mutual contract, people become conscious of moral obligations towards each other. There is a natural inclination among people to take advantage of each other although every individual never wants to get exploited by others. Therefore, to protect themselves from getting exploited, people enter into a tacit understand that they will not exploit others only if others do not exploit them. Social contract theory provides rights and responsibilities for both the community and its government. The members of a community have the right to form a government that will maintain law and order in the society and give punishments to criminals. It is the responsibility of the government to protect the citizens from foreign invasion. Even the U.S. Declaration of Independence endorses this theory by stating that all people have the right to oppose the government if it interferes with the individual rights and happiness of the people (Fieser, 2000, pp.93-94). Social contract theory suggests that people enter into society as fully formed individuals to satisfy their pre-social needs. This paper focuses on the evil side of this state by studying the political philosophy of Kant. Social contract theory of Kant The social contract theory of Kant contains his political philosophy. He gives the definition of an ideal republic state by saying that it must follow the idea of social contract theory that “the act through which a people constitutes itself a state, or to speak more properly the Idea of such an act, in terms of which alone its legitimacy can be conceived, is the original contract….the people surrender their outward freedom in order to resume it at once as members of a common entity, that is, the people regarded as the state” (Riley, 1973, p.450). Kant’s social contract theory is a legitimate idea that provides a platform for judging the efficiency of state and its laws. It is not any kind of real promise that people needs to obey at any point of time (Riley, 1973, p.450). Kant says that freedom means when someone if not restrained by the wills of other people. He defines state as a cooperative community in which people can exist with their personal freedom under a “universal law”. Kant rejects any other concept of a state. He says that a state cannot acquire powers based on the welfare of the citizens. The state has no right to define the happiness of people. It cannot interfere in the freedom of people (Rauscher, 2007). People need a governing body to rule over them so that they can live in peaceful cooperation in a society and work according to their maximum capabilities. The rule of government is indispensable because human beings do not always act according to reason, they often fall prey to their animal instincts to achieve what they desire and thereby violating the rights and freedom of other individuals. Governments need to enforce laws to bring order in the society and must force the people to obey them under the threat of punishing the offenders. However, Kant realizes that this theory cannot be without flaws because the government is made up of people who themselves are human beings with equal animal instincts. Therefore, it is impossible that rules by the government will always be just and fair. He demands that human beings strive to form a legal state by making the governing body accountable to the common people to avoid abuse of authority. Kant says “the head of state should be just in himself, and yet a human. This task is therefore the most difficult of all; its complete achievement is impossible….Nature only demands us to approach the idea” (Steets, 2010, pp.72-73). Social contract theory of Hegel Hegel never uses the nature of human beings as basis for deducing political theories. His social contract theory gives an account of human nature that “reveals an individualistic attitude that results in atomism in their political theories”. (Mansour, n.d.) In his lecture, System of ethical life, he talks about consciousness, needs and desires of human beings that result in the concept of tool, labour and other means by which to satisfy their needs. This gives rise to the concept of a civil society in which people can live in unity under a system that will fulfill their needs and desires. Hegel does not support the theory of building human rights and civil society on “assumptions of state of nature”. Instead, he substitutes the state of nature with his study of origin of self-awareness. He uses the concepts of language, tool, family and the people. Hegel’s Jena lectures have given another concept of the Individual. A mature individual with rational thinking comprises the liberal theory and this concept gives form to “rights, freedom, contracts and political association” (Mansour, n.d.) He talks about the evolution of the “Spirit and consciousness”. Hegel does not agree that human rights emerge from the nature of human beings which is same in every society and in all eras. Human beings have acquired their rights after a long struggle in the history of social science. He calls this the “struggle for recognition” (Mansour, n.d.). Hegel says that the definition of a state is not that its basic and final purpose is the individual. He quotes state as a “divine idea” that takes its shape on earth and individuals can achieve the truth and ethical life by being a member of the state. Hegel believes that state has the power to exercise ethical and political powers on people and individual is only a subordinate who needs to follow the rules imposed by the state (Milisavljevic, 1986, p.133). Comparison between Kant and Hegel theories Kant, in his philosophical theories concludes that human beings have limited access to knowledge and cannot gain knowledge of things in their original form. Kant has divided epistemic limits of human beings into two characteristic features. Firstly, a person can gain knowledge only in the boundaries of his experience. Secondly, a person cannot have knowledge of objects that require “divine intellectual intuition”, although his capabilities of reasoning will require him to acquire knowledge of such objects (Kreines, 2007, p.306). By this Kant means that intuition of human beings is sense intuition. So, Kant elaborates that a man can acquire that much knowledge of an object that he can feel by sensibilities. A man’s brain can grasp the recognition of an object only to the extent that the object can affect his senses. Kant takes consideration of divine intuition as completely different intuition than human intuition (Copleston, 2003, p.235). Hegel tries to prove his point against this conclusion of Kant. He says that it is possible for human beings to acquire knowledge of objects outside the boundaries of experience as is limited by Kant and there is no requirement for divine intuition for experiencing such knowledge. According to Hegel’s theory, there is no valid and legal reason to wait for divine intuition. It is also not necessary to come to the conclusion that knowledge of human beings is “restricted by comparison” and it is not possible to acquire knowledge of objects in their original form. Hegel attempted to prove that knowledge of many real things and aspects in this world is not restricted by the boundaries of experience that has been set by Kant. Hegel says that it is possible for human beings to enter into the realm of knowledge by themselves of objects in original and unmodified form. There is another “non-metaphysical or post-Kantian” interpretation of Hegel. The difference of interpretation is that “Kant denies that human beings can have the kinds of knowledge to which pre-critical metaphysics aspires, and Hegel agrees.” Kant argues that any theoretical inquiry made by people is guided by their capabilities of reasoning with the goal of acquiring knowledge of the “unconditioned”. He further argues that such knowledge can be gained only by a higher and divine kind of intuition. Such divine and intellectual kind of intuition can help people to grasp the reality of all objects. So, the faculty of reasoning within human beings compels them to understand the limits of their sensible intuition by which it is not possible to gain any knowledge of objects that require divine intuition. Hegel, in his arguments contradicts the theory of Kant. He argues that any reality of objects can be grasped immediately by human beings through knowledge gained outside the boundaries of experience and without the guidance of divine intuition. As example, Hegel points out that natural laws are learnt by human beings in their original forms without the bounds of experience that Kant argues is a requirement. Hegel seeks to show that knowledge can be gained by human beings beyond the restriction of boundaries of experience set by Kant and there is no legitimate reason for thinking that the “guiding goal of our theoretical inquiry is a kind of knowledge that is in principle unattainable” (Kreines, 2007, p.306). Hegel thus concludes that there is no need for human beings to accept the existence of such objects whose knowledge can be gained only with divine intuition and that knowledge of human beings is not limited by any kind of fundamental restrictions (Kreines, 2007, pp.306-308). Kant considers science as one type of knowledge. Hegel points out that Kant’s theories are incomplete as he did not succeed in describing the way in which knowledge can be derived within his set boundaries of experience. Hegel wants to combine the concepts of philosophy and science while Kant severs these two aspects of knowledge. Hegel undermined philosophy as a separate area of knowledge by identifying it with scientific knowledge. (Badillo, 1991, p.34) Hegel criticizes “formal approach to natural law” as stated in Kantian philosophy. Formalist conclusions are by nature so abstract that it cannot make any connective relationship between human reason and human experience. Kant fails to find any solution to overcome the abstract rationalism of “traditional natural law theories” (Duquette, 2005). Kant believes a state and its community of people can attempt towards attaining “perpetual peace” and such a goal is realistic and attainable. He says that a state cannot force an individual to perform his moralistic or benevolent duties as such duties are voluntary performances of individuals. However, this does not mean that a state is free from his moral obligations because according to Kant “a state is a moral person” and so has moral duties towards its citizens. This theory does not imply that a state cannot force its individuals to contribute by actions towards assisting the government to fulfill its moral obligations. This is because such actions are not specific and helps in adopting the goal of any state. In short, Kant says that a state can force an individual to contribute towards well-being of the society at large (Rosen, 1996, p.192). Hegel contradicts this theory by saying that war is an “ethical moment” of human life of any state or nation. It is neither “accidental nor inherently evil” (Duquette, 2005). Hegel says that there is no divine power that rules the nation-states. War becomes a necessity when the nations get engaged in conflicts regarding preservation of their individual existence and sovereignty. It is also important that a man must protect his own nation as it is his ethical duty and getting involved in war is due to his patriotic feeling towards his nation. Hegel explains his theory by quoting “sacrifice on behalf of the individuality of the state is the substantial tie between the state and all its members and so is a universal duty” (Duquette, 2005). There have been many other social contract theorists who hold different concepts of the relationship between state and individuals. Combined theory of Marx and Engel Marx and Engels do not accept the social contract theory in their assumptions and they do not make any attempt to justify the state in its existing form. Consequently, both the theorists consider that the state in its existing form cannot provide the true definition of freedom and equality to its citizens. The governing body of a state imposes restriction on the freedom and happiness of individuals and promotes unequal status among men. This condition is evil although in the “transition period of the proletarian dictatorship a necessary evil. Even during the era of Marx and Engel, the society was required to get rid of such evil system. Engel has written “the state is nothing more than a machine for the oppression of one class by another, and indeed in the democratic republic no less than in the monarchy” (Kelsen, 1988, p.40). There is anarchism characteristic in the Marx-Engel doctrine. Marxian anarchism says that accessibility of all processes of production in all classes of society is the purpose of revolution of the common people. The effect of such revolution will be immediate and automatic disappearance of the state. As an essential element for criticizing the concept of statehood, Marx in his social philosophy rejects the “state and bourgeois law.” The moral aspect of Marx’s theory criticizes the existing state by attacking exploitation of the capitalistic society as a kind of slavery (Kelsen, 1988, pp.40-41). Locke versus Hobbes Theory of Locke Both Locke and Hobbes are social contract theorists but with different ideas. Locke assumes that human beings are social animals by nature. He says in a state, men mostly honor their moral obligations and work for the welfare of the society. Even though there is a sense of insecurity, the condition remains peaceful and pleasant. Human beings are capable of distinguishing the good and the evil and so are well equipped to resolve conflicts. Locke says that if a ruler himself causes conflicts and promotes war, then the citizens have the right to kill him. He says that there is law and order in a civil society. According to his theory, men have inherent rights and the main duty of the state is to provide justice. This entire concept of Locke is rejected by Hobbes (James, n.d.). Theory of Hobbes Hobbes does not consider that human beings are social animals by nature and a state exists because of its governing body. He says that conflicting interests of men do not allow them to live in cooperative societies without the persistent fear of violent deaths and poverty. Only under the rule of a strong governing body can people strive to stay together in a state. People cannot have the knowledge of right and wrong, and so they can never have the capability to resolve conflicts in peaceful manner. Hobbes argues that men give up their rights to the government in return of protection of their lives (James, n.d.). Conclusion Accurate determination of duties of one human being towards others can be done by knowledge of the characteristics of the individual. His gender, race and nationality should also be considered. The moral agents can motivate themselves on moral grounds with the help of this knowledge (Rauscher, 2007). However, the practical application of this kind of knowledge is rather weak in Kant’s theories. References Badillo, R. P. (1991). The emancipative theory of Jürgen Habermas and metaphysics, Washington: CRVP. Copleston, F. (2003). A History of Philosophy: the enlightenment Voltaire to Kant. Cornwall: Continuum International Publishing Group. Duquette, D. A. (July 3, 2005). Hegel’s social and political thought. IEP.utm.edu. [online] Available at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/hegelsoc/#SSH6c.ii [Accessed March 21, 2012] Fieser, J. (2000). Moral Philosophy through the Ages. USA: James Fieser. James, D. (n.d.). Locke versus Hobbes. Jim.com. [online] Available at: http://jim.com/hobbes.htm [Accessed March 21, 2012] Kelsen, H. (1988). The communist theory of law. USA: Wm. S. Hein Publishing. Kreines, J. (June, 2007). Between the bounds of experience and divine intuition: Kant’s epistemic limits and Hegel’s ambitions. Inquiry, 50.3, 306-308, [online] Available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2a86339b-a30e-42d0-8b4d-0f297fa00e40%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=106 [Accessed March 21, 2012] Mansour, A. (n.d.). Hegel’s critique of liberalism and social contract theories in the Jena lectures. Marxists.org. [online] Available at: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/txt/mansour.htm [Accessed March 21, 2012] Milisavljevic, V. (1986). The struggle for recognition in Hegel’s Jena writings. Europhilosophie.eu. [online] Available at: http://www.europhilosophie.eu/mundus/IMG/pdf/struggle-recognition-hegel.pdf [Accessed March 21, 2012] Rauscher, F. (July 24, 2007). Kant’s social and political philosophy. Stanford. [online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/ [Accessed March 21, 2012] Riley P. (1973). On Kant as the most adequate of the social contract theorists. Political theory, 1.4, 450, [online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/191063?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=55908597643 [Accessed on March 21, 2012] Rosen, A. D. (1996). Kant’s theory of justice, USA: Cornell University Press. Steets, J. (2010). Accountability in Public Policy Partnerships, Germany: Palgrave Macmillan. Read More