Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines a social contract as an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each. Social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes defends the claim that it is never rational to behave unjustly. According to Hobbes, our human nature prevents us from naturally living at peace with one another. Hobbes depicts this by describing a pre-political state of nature in which people constantly war. To move beyond this state of nature, we recognize the need to seek peace, the need to give up our hostile rights, and the need to keep our agreements. Accordingly, we enter into a social contract with one another and establish a …show more content…
Thomas Hobbes’ legal theory is based on “Social contract”. According to Hobbes, prior to social contract, “man” lived in the State of Nature. “Man’s” life in the State of Nature was one of fear and selfishness. “Man” lived in chaotic condition of constant fear. Life in the State of Nature was “solitary”, “poor”, “nasty”, “brutish”, and “short”. “Man” has a natural desire for security and order. In order to secure self-protection and self-preservation, and to avoid misery and pain, “man” entered into a contract. This idea of self-preservation and self-protection are inherent in “man’s” nature and in order to achieve this, voluntarily surrendered all their rights and freedoms by this contract to some authority who must command obedience. As a result of this contract, the mightiest authority is to protect and preserve their lives and property. This led to the emergence of the institution of the “ruler” or “monarch”, who shall be the absolute
He states that, “Every one with every one...Shall be given by the major part, the right to present the person of them all” (Hobbes [1651] 2013). Thus, a democratic form of governance is beginning to emerge, and the responsibility of the sovereign is to form laws that avoid returning to a state of nature. Essentially, Hobbes presents a way of government that appears optimal, and capable of lasting a long term. The elected sovereign is not to be overthrown because through the unanimous decision of members of the state the sovereign was chosen, and maintain authority through deliverance of suitable laws (Hobbes [1651] 2013). Thus, citizens are more likely to comply with this form of government because they maintain the impression that their sovereign only looks out for their best interests, as well as recognizes what is best for them because he was chosen to be in
...d seek peace. In establishing a covenant and instituting a sovereign, men give up the rights they possessed in the state of nature, as well as the right to live without tyranny. However for Hobbes, those sacrifices are overshadowed by what is gained by living under a truly absolute sovereign. A sovereign, corrupt or not, guarantees order and prevents chaos and death. Those are, word for word, the reasons the social contract was initially established and therefore fully justify the creation of an absolute sovereign. Thomas Hobbes, who wrote Leviathan during the English Civil Wars, looked out his window at chaos and decided that survival should be pursued at all costs.
Hamilton harkens to the great English Philosopher, Thomas Hobbes and the Social Theory Contract for a clear understanding of the issues. The Social Contract Theory is the basis for the Declaration of Independence and the guiding t...
Similar to Hobbes, a contract is made between people. The social contract requires them to totally alienate all of their rights to the entire community. This is a significant difference from Hobbes theory because in this case the people are laying down their rights to one another and not to a sole figure. Because the social contract is set up in this way, there is no room from reservations; no one would try and make the contract harder for anyone because to do that would in turn make it harder for themselves. The lack of partiality creates a near perfect union. (Rousseau, 164) Another major difference between this theory and the one formerly mentioned is that this agreement is advantageous for the soon to be subjects. This advantage goes beyond safety from the state of nature; by agreeing to surrender all of their rights to each person without there being one man who retains it, they gain “the equivalent of everything he loses” however this time there is more force to preserve them. Now, one may wonder how this can work if everybody gains back the rights they surrendered to make the contract. We can understand this as people who come together, promising to not use these rights against each other, an instead they combine them to create a sum of forces that can withstand the resistance presented in the state of nature. (Rousseau, 163) After the contract is set up the
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.
In order to fully grasp Hobbes' theory of Social Contract, one must first become familiar with his basic premises of "The State of Nature." In this state each individual is inherently in a perpetual state of war, due to several given reasons. Hobbes assumes that "Nature hath made men…equall." (Hobbes 183) Also, that in this state of war all men exemplify purely egoistic behavior, striving to do whatever possible to maximize their own utility, even if it requires murdering another. In addition to these conditions, in the state of nature, there exists a state of natural scarcity, in which, a finite amount of goods, possessions, property, "cattell," "wives," whatever, exist to satisfy man's infinite wants. "And therefore if any two men desire the same thing…they become enemies and…endeavour to destroy or subdue one an other." (Hobbes 184) Hence, creating a constant state of war.
To begin, philosophy, which means the love of wisdom, is the study of knowledge. The study of philosophy has evolved and is continually growing, however its foundations are firmly rooted in classical philosophers and their valuable attributions to the field of study.. Thomas Hobbes’ was a political philosopher alive in the 1500’s. One of his main inquiries as a philosopher was to establish a way for humans to co-exist peacefully. (Reid, Jeffrey) Hobbes conception of the social contract will be briefly introduced, as his understanding will serve as the definition of social contract for the purpose of this paper. Hobbes contemplated how and why human beings acted the way they do through two differing approaches.. Hobbes examined the difference between the right of nature and the law of nature. To explore the right of nature Hobbes explained that “if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation
Based on this, rational beings would naturally enter into a covenant in which individuals would give up certain freedoms – the right to murder, steal and so on – in order to safe guard against such actions being taken against themselves. This covenant would vest power in an authority above individuals, and would be responsible for dolling out justice. Hobbes’ theory revolves around human’s being rational and self-interested beings. Notably, while a social contract theoretically protects the rights of all, this is not the importance. Each individual is interested only in protecting their own life and property. One of the main issues with contractualist ethics is that it relies on the consent of the governed. Such consent has been argued for in different methods by different philosophers. Some have suggested a very literal version of consent in which consent was a historical reality of early people, but this fails to explain how the theory applies to modern society, as contractual obligations are not
In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern
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.
...in civil society through the precepts or general rules that are the laws of nature. Men follow these as it is in their own self-interest to do so. Hobbes’ laws of nature also differ from traditional conceptions, as he does not believe, unlike Aquinas, that natural law is innate through divine providence and God-given rationality. It is rather that men choose to form an agreement, as it is their best chance to escape a miserable life and horrific death. His view can thus be deemed as utilitarian.
Social contract adheres to the concept that in pre-societal terms man relied on the state of nature: life with no government and no regulation. Interpretations of state of nature from English Philosopher Thomas Hobbes and that of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau differ on the basis of development and operation of the social contract. Hobbes proposed that man lived in fear and self-interest to the point that it was in human nature to seek security and self-protection to which he [man] enters a social contract. While Rousseau argues that man’s individualism, freedom, and equality is diluted through the formation of modern civilization and is “forced to be free” (p.46). How social contract operates from perspective of Hobbes and Rousseau
The version of a social contract that would be best suited to present times is Hobbes’ contract. This is because in today’s society, people want what they want, and people will do anything to get it. They will fight, break down each other, use violence, and even if this may destroy what they are fighting for, each individual wants to win. For example, in the cake scenario every party would fight to get the biggest piece. However, even if this may destroy the cake itself, winning the fight is more important than the initial cause of getting a bigger piece of the cake, after the fight has started.
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.
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.