Imagine a world in which there are no rules and brutal competition leaves people fighting for reputation, personal gain, and the safety of themselves and their family. Every waking moment you must be vigilant, not knowing who to trust or which breath might be your last. This scenario is what Thomas Hobbes describes in his Leviathan as the state of nature, the “war of all against all” that persists without the presence of a strong governing body.1 This paper will outline Hobbes’ arguments on why surrendering some of our freedoms is rational and how nothing is unjust without a commonwealth, while also presenting objections to the social contract theory and, in turn, evaluating those oppositions. In the previously described scenario, people have
This is apparent through the definition of what it means to enter a social contract. Participants must be free, equal, and rational to create the agreed upon social contract, and the rights assigned by those contractarians will go towards other free, equal, and rational people. In order to have genuine moral importance, you must be a part of this system, with your cooperation benefiting everyone in the community, else there is no reward in allowing you to be a part of the group.2 This would only create a free-rider problem where a person receives all the benefits of others making sacrifices without giving anything up themselves. Thus, contractarianism offers no protections to the neediest among us, forgetting to assign rights to infants, the severely disabled, and animals. They cannot contribute to the social contract society and are not labeled as free, equal, and rational. We could give them security if we wanted to, however, reason goes against this ideal since we can get what we want from them without sacrificing anything
Infants may not be free, equal, and rational when they are young, but it cannot be disputed that every person of influence and importance was once a baby and had to develop into beings that can enter the social contract. This immense potential for contribution should provide reason enough to include protections for these community members. A physically disabled person may have an incredible intellect that solves the world’s most complicated mathematical formula, causing a renaissance in engineering. Stephen Hawking, who has Lou Gehrig’s disease, is one of the most important physicists of our time, providing theories on relativity, quantum gravity, and the cosmos. His rationality is not undermined, only his freedom of movement is. Yet, the scientific community would have lost a critical asset if he had not been treated like everyone else in the contract. Animals arguably sacrifice the most in a social contract, namely their life. The sustenance that comes from meat has contributed to generations of keeping humans alive. We should sacrifice our freedoms to money and convenience to give these creatures ample food, shelter, and open space in exchange for their sacrifice of life. The social contract needs to be extended in these ways to account for marginal cases. Therefore, Hobbes’ arguments are shaky but can be broadened to include outliers, and
In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan’s perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality, and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living, and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few instances. If humans are still treated in a respectable and right way even if some cannot vote, or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack in some of these abilities be treated as equals. As Regan puts it, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989).
Machiavelli divides all states into principalities and republics, principalities are governed by a solitary figure and republics are ruled by a group of people. With Hobbes’ Leviathan a new model for governing a territory was introduced that can no longer be equally divided into Machiavelli's two state categories. Hobbes combines the concepts for governing principalities and republics into a new type of political thought that is similar to and different from Machiavelli. Hobbes, unlike Machiavelli, is on the side of the people and not the armed prophets. Hobbes believes that the function of society is not just merely living, but to have a safe and comfortable life. He believes that by transferring all rights to a sovereign the threat of the state of nature will be diminished. A sovereign elected will be able to represent and protect everyone equally, they are not a ruler of the people but a representative. The Leviathan differs from a principalities and a republics by establishing the institution of the commonwealth through the social contract.
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...
In The Leviathan Thomas Hobbes argues for the establishment of a society that does not contain the elements of its own demise. Hobbes views civil war as a society’s ultimate demise, and the only way to avoid it is for the citizens initially to submit to an absolute political authority. For Hobbes, civil war is inevitable in every type of government except an absolute government. In order to sustain this absolute government, the citizens not only must submit to the absolute political authority, but they must also not partake in activities that actively undermine the absolute political authority’s power. For these reasons, it is clear that Hobbes believes in political obedience and its ability to influence the peace of a society. Furthermore,
Thomas Hobbes is now broadly viewed as one of a smaller group of truly extraordinary political thinkers, whose major work was the Leviathan rivals in meaning the political writings of Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls. Hobbes is most known for his for his early and elaborate development of what has come to be known as “social contract theory”, the method of justifying political principles or arrangements by appeal to the agreement that would be made among suitably situated rational, free, and equal persons. He is most famous for using his theory on the social contract to submit that human beings should submit to an absolute—undivided and unlimited—sovereign power (Lloyd, 2014) Hobbes wanted to ascertain the clear values for the construction of a civil organization that would not be subject to destruction from within. Hobbes maintains the ideology that people should look at their government as having absolute authority, while arguing that the government has absolute power he reserves the idea that we have the liberty of disobeying some of our government's instructions. He argues that subjects retain a
Judd Owen, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Emory University, attempts to defend the liberal interpretation of Hobbes’s political philosophy by demonstrating his promotion of a “liberal politics of toleration” (pg. 133). Owen begins by asking the following question: “How can Hobbes’s political philosophy be directed to a tolerant regime, and yet be hostile to the granting of unconditional freedoms or rights?” (pg. 134). In truth, those who enter into a commonwealth via the social contract forfeit almost all of the rights and liberties that they possessed in the state of nature (except the right to self-defense). However, Owen proceeds to explicate how the aim of Hobbes’s civil society is not the alienation of individual liberties (although individual rights are in fact alienated). Rather, this forfeiture of rights is only a means by which to secure the greatest amount of liberty that can actually be enjoyed by the individual. In other terms, human beings possess unrestricted liberty rights in the state of nature, but they are neither free enough nor secure enough to enjoy them without constant threat of violence or death. Thus, individuals consent to engage in civil society because it is the only condition in which they can enjoy a modicum of liberty and true freedom of will. Although the subjects of a commonwealth must give up their claims to absolute liberty, the sovereign authority and civil law allow for a great deal of individual toleration. For example,
In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke proposes an idealized state of nature in which men are self-sufficient and content. The implications of his idealized population lead him to derive the existence of government from its own theoretical roots: Locke proposes government as a naturally occurring consequence of his state of nature. This derivation is founded on the injustice of man in his natural state: it is the imperfections found in the state of nature that necessitate government. This paper aims to show why the inequality caused by the existence of a market economy is an intentional and necessary path from Locke’s state of nature to the existence of the commonwealth. It will first argue that unequal possession is an inevitable consequence of property as defined by Locke. It will then show why this inequality is a necessary transition out of the state of nature for mankind. It will finally argue that each man’s consent to currency, and the injustice it brings, is the foundation for the overall consent to the commonwealth. The existence of inequality is naturally introduced and maintained throughout Locke’s argument. Hobbes successfully defends that economic inequality is both a natural and crucial part of political society; both the inequality of human ability and the resulting economic inequality precede the existence of an ideal state.
According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, human beings are bestowed with the blessings of freedom during their individual genesis on this fruitful planet, but this natural freedom is immensely circumscribed as it’s exchanged for the civil liberties of the State. He indicated that the supplanting of natural freedom is necessary for the obtainment of greater power for the greater collective community, but the prospect of obtaining superlative capabilities comes with the price of constraints. Yet this notion of natural freedom conflicts with Thomas Hobbes rendition on the state of nature because he illustrates that nature, interface through savagery. According to Hobbes, mankind has endorsed and embraced natures temperament, because this system of truculency and servility that nature orbits adversely affects the nature of mankind, resulting in mankinds affinity for greed, and brutal ambition. Inspite of their conflicting perspectives on the state of nature, both support and explicate on the idea that the preservation and proliferation of mankind as a whole is best achieved through their belief, and withholding the policies of a social contract. The intention of Leviathan is to create this perfect government, which people eagerly aspires to become apart of, at the behest of individual relinquishing their born rights. This commonwealth, the aggregation of people for the purposes of preventing unrest and war, is predicated upon laws that prohibit injustice through the implementation of punishment. Essentially in the mind of both Rousseau and Hobbes, constraints are necessary for human beings to be truly free under the covenants and contracts applied to the civil state at which mankind interface through.
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.
Let us begin with establishing whether the free rider is being rational or not from an individual perspective. If the argument is “my contribution alone is negligible; therefore, I need not contribute to the collective action” — it is fair to argue that the free rider is being rational. It is true, the free rider’s contribution alone will not make any difference, since no one’s single contribution alone will make any difference on its own. If we look at the taxpayer’s example, we can see clearly that the government will not go bankrupt or the benefit the free rider will get from public services he wishes to receive will not change because of the fact that he did not pay his share of the taxes. If we look at other examples such as voting, we see a difference. Although not voting is commonly referred to ...
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.
This mutual transference of rights is called a contract, or covenant. By adhering to the contract, a man gives up whatever rights set forth by the contract. However, man cannot give up his right to defend himself, for the entire purpose of entering the contract is self-preservation. Once the contract is formed, one must obey Hobbes’ third law of nature, which is to adhere to the contract (Leviathan 1, 14)...
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
In Leviathan, Hobbes states that a state of war will ensue that will put every man against himself. Eventually the state of war will lead the people towards peace and the only way to achieve the peace is through social contract. Hobbes continues further saying, social peace and civil unity are best achieved through the establishment of a commonwealth through a social contract. This social contract insists that a sovereign power be granted absolute power to protect the commonwealth. This sovereign power will be able to control the powers of human nature because its whole function is to protect the common man.
When Hobbes refers to this that is what he is talking about. The state of nature would be awful, due to the four basic needs that every human being needs. “There is equality of need” (EMP pg. 83). Everyone needs the same basic things to survive and those are food, shelter, clothing, and so on. “There is scarcity” (EMP pg. 83). People have to work hard to produce things, even when there is a small supply. Things are not just given to people. “There is equality of human power” (EMP pg. 83). This simple means that even if people are smarter or tougher then someone else it doesn’t mean that they cannot be brought down. The last one is “there is limited altruism” (EMP pg 84). No one can trust anyone besides themselves because others care more about themselves. With every human being having the same basic needs there is not enough to go around. The world would be total chaos; everyone would be fighting over everything. In a world like this no one would win. Without the Social Contract Theory there would be no rules or order and the world would be at war with each other. To get away from the state of nature society must cooperate with each other, when everyone works together more good comes out of it. When it comes down to the social contract