ETHICAL EGOISM AND THE IDEA OF A SOCIAL CONTRACT Social Contract consists in the set of rules, governing how people are to treat another, for their mutual benefits, on the condition that others follow those rules as well. The best example of the social contract is the laws and the governments.
The idea of a Social Contract People always used to think why we have laws and governments and from where we get the idea of forming laws and governments, similarly from where we get the idea of a social contract? Hobbes’s argument and the prisoner’s dilemma are the two ways of arriving at the social contract theory.
Hobbes’s Argument Thomas Hobbes, the foremost British philosopher said that if we don’t have any laws or governments, we can do whatever
…show more content…
Each prisoner is held in different prisons which means both of them can’t communicate with each other. The police offer each prisoner a deal. If he testifies against his partner, he will go free while the partner will get ten years in prison. If both prisoners testify against each other, both will be sentenced to 5 years in jail and if both prisoners don’t testify each other, both will be sentenced to a year in jail. The two prisoners can’t communicate with each other so the only thing each prisoner cares about is minimizing their own sentence. The best option for prisoners in here is to confess. What if both prisoners are able to communicate with each other, they will choose to don’t testify each other but there will be another problem, how can prisoners trust each other? What if one of them testifies to avoid a year in prison? In some case, we will get a better result when we cooperate with others than doing individually, but we can 't trust anyone so we make a social contract. Here prisoners can make a social contract to avoid trust issue. The best example for this is when two countries can 't trust each other then they will sign a contract to cooperate with each …show more content…
The reason for the Civil Disobedience is when people don’t get any benefit from obeying laws then they will try to oppose or break the laws. For example, the movement led by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi against British rules in India and American civil right movement led by Martin Luther king Jr. Both movements refused to obey the rules, but we can justify their action because we only agree to obey rules if it’s benefiting us. In India, British rules were not benefiting the people in India and in America only a certain group enjoying all benefit and other groups were not getting any
Thomas Hobbes believes that the optimal form of authority is one that has absolute power over its people, consisting of just one person who will retain the exclusive ability to oversee and decide on all of society’s issues. This Sovereign will be constituted by a social contract with the people. With that, the Sovereign will hold all of the citizens’ rights, and will be permitted to act in whichever way he or she deems necessary. The philosopher comes to this conclusion with deductive reasoning, utilizing a scientific method with straightforward arguments to prove his point.
“Social contract theory says that people live together in society in accordance with an agreement that establishes moral and political rules of behavior. Some people believe that if we live according to a social contract, we can live morally by our own choice and not because a divine being requires it.” - Crash Course. I think they provide a valuable framework for harmony in society. In this sitution is not good thing which third/ fourths of the people don’t understand english that it could be dangerous for the people who don’t speak chinse.
In his Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes outlined his views on law, the individual and the state. It is the first and foremost pieces on social contract theory. Hobbes explains the emergence of a sovereign, as “an embodiment of people’s individual and collective will to live in conditions of security, peace and some minimal prosperity” .
Society’s structure has been debated and contested as far back as ancient Greece. Since then, man has developed social systems that greatly differ from anything the ancients had in mind. One such system is the social contract theory, which first came to prominence around the time of the enlightenment. Simplified, social contractarians argued that in order to achieve a balanced and stable society, all of its members must sacrifice certain liberties to a government or similar authority. As Rousseau explains, the contract begins when “Each of us places his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will” (148). Essentially, it is an agreement between the rulers and the ruled that produces a stable political state. John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract are both enlightenment works that detail contractarianism, yet each has a unique and different way of considering the social contract. Although John Stuart Mill is also known for his work with Utilitarianism, his essay On Liberty considers consent and other issues relating to contract theory. These authors provide different insights into the social contract, and frequently one will reject another’s idea and offer a new solution. Even after this meshing of ideas and solutions, contract theory falls short of practicality. The idea is appealing, appearing on the surface as a fair and just way of governance. However, true liberty cannot arise from a contract, as man cannot be “forced to be free” (150). There are two fundamental flaws with contractarianism: it is not practical and it ignores human nature, and even if were possible to establish a true contract-based society, the citi...
Civil Disobedience occurs when an individual or group of people are in violation of the law rather than a refusal of the system as a whole. There is evidence of civil disobedience dating back to the era after Jesus was born. Jesus followers broke the laws that went against their faith. An example of this is in Acts 4:19-20,”God told the church to preach the gospel, so they defied orders to keep quiet about Jesus,” In my opinion civil disobedience will always be needed in the world. The ability to identify with yourself and knowing right from wrong helps to explain my opinion. Often in society when civil
In the Theory of Justice by John Rawls, he defines civil disobedience,” I shall begin by defining civil disobedience as a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”.
Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means. The use of nonviolence runs throughout history however the fusion of organized mass struggle and nonviolence is relatively new.
A Theory of Justice is the magnum opus of 20th century social contract theorist and political philosopher, John Rawls. A bit of background into this work is that social contract theory had fallen out of favor with political scientists and philosophers since the last 18th century, with the success of the American Revolution and the apparent triumph of John Locke and Democracy. However, with the advent of modern globalization, the emergence of America as a superpower, but the growing concern of socio-economic disparity necessitated a revisiting of the social contract, what it means, how societies and governments were best constructed.
...unavoidable circumstance for human beings because collective rationality is also available. The only problem with collective rationality is that humans tend to stray from collective rational behavior in order to pursue individual ambition. Agreements are insignificant in the state of nature since there is no guarantee that humans will act as promised. However, Hobbes suggest that a solution to this is a sovereign who will enact strict penalties against anyone who violates these laws.
The use of civil disobedience is a respectable way of protesting a governments rule. When someone believes that they are being forced into following unjust laws they should stand up for what they believe in no matter the consequences because it is not just one individual they are protesting for they are protesting for the well-being of a nation. Thoreau says ?to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.? People should only let wrong and right be governed by what they believe not the people of the majority. The public should always stand for what is right, stand when they think a government is wrong, and trust in their moral beliefs.
In this essay, I will present three reasons as to why the absolute authority of the sovereign in Hobbes’s state of nature and social contract is justified. The three reasons Hobbes uses are: the argument from contract, the argument from authorisation and the argument from weakness of mixed or divided sovereignty. Firstly, I shall explain Hobbes’s understanding of human nature and the natural condition of humanity which causes the emergence of the social contract. I shall then analyse each argument for the absolute authority of the sovereign being justified. I shall then consider possible objections to Hobbes’s argument. I shall then show why Hobbes’s argument is successful and the absolute authority of the sovereign is justified.
The main critics of Thomas Hobbes’ work are most often those with a more optimistic view of human nature. However, if one is to really look at a man’s actions in depth, a self-serving motivation can always be found. The main problem with Hobbes’ claims is that he does not account for the more Darwinian perspective that helping one’s own species survive is at the same time a selfish and unwar-like act. Thus his conclusion that without a governing body, we are essentially at war with one another is not completely true as years of evolution can help disprove.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both social contract scholars. Social Contract Theory is the speculation that one's ethical commitments are indigent upon an implied understanding between people to structure a general public (Friend, 2004). Both Hobbes and Locke utilize a social contract hypothesis as an issue of clarifying the beginning of government. Hobbes and Locke are principally prestigious for their showstoppers on political reasoning; Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Two Treatise of Government. Each one contains altogether different originations of a social contract in any case, both hold the focal thought that individuals in a State of Nature would be ready to repudiate their freedom for state security (Kelly, 2004, p. 202). While both
Thomas Hobbes creates a clear idea of the social contract theory in which the social contract is a collective agreement where everyone in the state of nature comes together and sacrifices all their liberty in return to security. “In return, the State promises to exercise its absolute power to maintain a state of peace (by punishing deviants, etc.)” So are the power and the ability of the state making people obey to the laws or is there a wider context to this? I am going to look at the different factors to this argument including a wide range of critiques about Hobbes’ theory to see whether or not his theory is convincing reason for constantly obeying the law.
A contract is an agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to perform some actions in return of some consideration. These promises are legally binding. The contract can be for exchange of goods, services, property and so on. A contract can be oral as well as written and also it can be part oral and part written but it is useful to have written contract otherwise issues can be created in future. But both the written as well as oral contract is legally enforceable. Also if there is a breach of contract, there are certain remedies for that which are discussed later in the assignment. There are certain elements which need to be present in a contract. These elements are discussed in the detail in the assignment. (Clarke,