DOCSLIB.ORG

Social Contract Theory and John Locke

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Social Contract Theory and John Locke Social Contract Theory and John Locke Man, in his earliest times, lived in a “state of nature” or unbridled freedom. The “law of the jungle” ruled mankind. Each man could do as he pleased and in any manner as he chose, as long as he could physically do it. That which he could take by force was his, and remained his for as long as he could hold it. All men were free in this way. Therefore, each man was only as safe as his own physical prowess and watchfulness could make him. His life in the state of nature was “nasty, brutish, and short.” According to the social contract theory, men overcame their unpleasant condition by agreeing with one another to form a group and create a “community”. In other words, individual humans gave up some of their independence and freedom in order to enjoy the benefits of social life. Each person agreed to live within the rules of the social group or community. This was the birth of “civil society”. The way the civil society maintained order and made decisions is its government. The government and the state became the same thing. By contract, men within a given area joined together, each agreed to give up to the group (state) as much power as was needed to promote the safety and well-being of all. In the contract, the members of the group created a government to exercise the powers which they had voluntarily granted to the state. The social contract theory argues that the state arose out of a voluntary act of free men. It holds that the state exists only to serve the will of the people, that they are the sole source of political power, and that they are free to give or withhold that power as they choose. The form of government did not matter. The concern was how well the government leaders served the people. For their part, individual citizens were expected to follow the rules and limitations established by the group and its government – value law, order, and social stability. They were to do their very best to prosper as individuals so that society as a whole could be improved. They assume their duties and obligations to their society when called upon to do so, such as being soldiers in times of defense and paying taxes to run the government. Under the social contract, people accepted the fact that the society, by way of the government, laws and social pressure, had the right to limit and interfere with individuals. However, the limitations and interference must be based on principles that were in the best interest of the people in general. In other words, the society or government could interfere if it did not violate the rights of all citizens in the society and would benefit the society as a whole. When individuals did not fulfill their duties or harmed or limited the society, these individuals could be punished. The people gave the government the power and authority to make and enforce laws and punish the disobedient. Under the social contract, the government and its leaders ruled with the approval of the people. Therefore, the people had the right to disband the government or replace its leaders. This would only happen when the majority of people decided that its leaders no longer served the people and promoted their interests. The people thought this ability to disband an abusive government was their way to monitor and limit the power and actions of their government. They also thought that this would force their leaders to be directly responsible to the people. Most people in England and the American colonies believed that a social contract existed between the people and the king and Parliament. They believed it was an agreement people voluntarily accepted and that all members of the society, including the government, were obligated to fulfill their part of the agreement. The Enlightenment began in Europe, as scientists discovered natural laws governing the universe. For example, Isaac Newtown explained the law of gravity. Other Enlightenment thinkers applied the idea of natural law to human societies. The English philosopher John Locke argued that people have “natural rights”. These natural rights are guarantees all people have because they are humans. These are rights to life, liberty, and property. Locke, as part of the social contract, stated that people create governments to protect their natural rights. If a government fails in this duty, people have the right to change it. Locke also challenged the belief that kings had a God-given right to rule. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Political Companion to Henry David Thoreau
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Literature in English, North America English Language and Literature 6-11-2009 A Political Companion to Henry David Thoreau Jack Turner University of Washington Click here to let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Thanks to the University of Kentucky Libraries and the University Press of Kentucky, this book is freely available to current faculty, students, and staff at the University of Kentucky. Find other University of Kentucky Books at uknowledge.uky.edu/upk. For more information, please contact UKnowledge at [email protected]. Recommended Citation Turner, Jack, "A Political Companion to Henry David Thoreau" (2009). Literature in English, North America. 70. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_english_language_and_literature_north_america/70 A Political Companion to Henr y David Thoreau POLITIcaL COMpaNIONS TO GREat AMERIcaN AUthORS Series Editor: Patrick J. Deneen, Georgetown University The Political Companions to Great American Authors series illuminates the complex political thought of the nation’s most celebrated writers from the founding era to the present. The goals of the series are to demonstrate how American political thought is understood and represented by great Ameri- can writers and to describe how our polity’s understanding of fundamental principles such as democracy, equality, freedom, toleration, and fraternity has been influenced by these canonical authors. The series features a broad spectrum of political theorists, philoso- phers, and literary critics and scholars whose work examines classic authors and seeks to explain their continuing influence on American political, social, intellectual, and cultural life. This series reappraises esteemed American authors and evaluates their writings as lasting works of art that continue to inform and guide the American democratic experiment.
    [Show full text]
  • Rousseau and the Social Contract
    In Dialogue with Humanity Rousseau and The Social Contract by Leung Mei Yee Ho Wai Ming Yeung Yang Part I Rousseau‟s life and works Part II The Discourses – Critique of society and civilization Part III The Social Contract Part 1 Rousseau‟s life and works… and the people who influenced him 3 Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) One of the most influential yet controversial figures of the Enlightenment 4 He was the most portrayed character of the 18th century apart from Napoleon. (Jean-Jacques Monney) 5 Best known to the world by his political theory, he was also a well admired composer, and author of important works in very different fields. 6 Major works Novels Julie: or the New Héloïse (1761) Emile: or, on Education (1762) Autobiographical works The Reveries of the Solitary Walker (1782) The Confessions (1782-89) Essays Discourse on the Sciences and Arts (1750) Discourse on Inequality (1755) Discourse on Political Economy (1755-56) The Social Contract (1762) 7 Major Works Letters Letters on French Music (1753) Letters on the Elements of Botany (1780) Letter to M. d’Alembert on the Theatre (1758) Letters written from the Mountain (1764) Music Opera: Le devin du village (1752) Dictionary of Music (1767) 8 Born in 1712 in Geneva Small Calvinist city-state surrounded by large, predominately Catholic nations; Republic in the midst of duchies and monarchies Was brought up by his father The house where Rousseau since his mother died in was born at number 40, place du Bourg-de-Four childbirth 9 Left Geneva at the
    [Show full text]
  • Social Contract As Bourgeois Ideology Stephen C
    Social Contract as Bourgeois Ideology Stephen C. Ferguson II John Rawls (Photo © Steve Pyke.) Since the publication of John Rawls’ magnum opus A Theory of Justice in 1971, there has been a significant resurgence of philosophical work in the tradition of contractarianism. The distinguished bourgeois political philosopher Robert Nozick has argued that A Theory of Justice is one of the most important works in political philosophy since the writings of John Stuart Mill. “Political philosophers,” Nozick concludes, “now must either work within Rawls’ theory or explain why.”1 It is not far from the truth that Rawls single-handedly not only gave life to analytical political philosophy, but also resuscitated contractarianism, a philosophical tradition that — in many respects — had been lying dormant in a philosophical coma. In fact, social contract theory has become the hegemonic tradition in liberal social and political philosophy. As the Afro-Caribbean My thanks for advice, guidance and/or invaluable criticism of earlier drafts to John H. McClendon III, Ann Cudd, Rex Martin, Tom Tuozzo, Robert J. Antonio and Tariq Al-Jamil. I would also like to extend a hearty thanks to Greg Meyerson and David Siar for their invaluable editorial comments. And, lastly, thanks to my wife, Cassondra, and my two sons, Kendall and Trey, for your unqualified love and support in times of tranquility as well as times of crisis. 1 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974): 183. Copyright © 2007 by Stephen C. Ferguson and Cultural Logic, ISSN 1097-3087 Ferguson 2 philosopher Charles Mills has put it, contract talk is, after all, the political lingua franca of our times.2 In this essay, we will examine the ideological character and theoretical content of contractrarianism as a philosophical tradition beginning with its classic exposition in the works of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and, finally, culminating in the work of John Rawls.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Contract, Social Policy and Social Capital
    THE PAST AND FUTURE: SOCIAL CONTRACT, SOCIAL POLICY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL Cornelia Butler Flora Jan L. Flora Iowa State University Social Contract Early social theorists (Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau) were intrigued by the notion of order and the mutual obligation it entails. For them, a critical part of social order is the relation between the ruler and the ruled, which includes collective agreement on the criteria for distinguishing right behavior from wrong, and enforcing right action. Why do the vast majority of people do what they are supposed to do? Hobbes addressed the question by theorizing what he felt separated "civilized" society from savagery. The "state of nature," according to Hobbes, was based on each person gaining the most possible on an individual basis, resulting in a life that was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Only when individuals, through a social contract, give up their individual liberty to a sovereign committed to defending the subjects' lives in exchange for obedience to the sovereign's rules, does order, and thus security, emerge. The Hobbesian argument justifies the power of the sovereign. If citizens do not obey the rules, harsh and even extreme punishment isj ustifiable, indeed, necessary. Locke differed from Hobbes in his view of history. He argued that the rights of life and property were recognized under natural law. Insecurity arose from lack of clarity as to who was to enforce those rights. The social contract involves individuals agreeing to obey the laws of the state in exchange for the state's protection of the person and property.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloading Material Is Agreeing to Abide by the Terms of the Repository Licence
    Cronfa - Swansea University Open Access Repository _____________________________________________________________ This is an author produced version of a paper published in: Philosophy & Social Criticism Cronfa URL for this paper: http://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa52091 _____________________________________________________________ Paper: Cockburn, P. & Thorup, M. (2018). Proprietors and parasites. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 44(2), 179-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0191453717723189 _____________________________________________________________ This item is brought to you by Swansea University. Any person downloading material is agreeing to abide by the terms of the repository licence. Copies of full text items may be used or reproduced in any format or medium, without prior permission for personal research or study, educational or non-commercial purposes only. The copyright for any work remains with the original author unless otherwise specified. The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holder. Permission for multiple reproductions should be obtained from the original author. Authors are personally responsible for adhering to copyright and publisher restrictions when uploading content to the repository. http://www.swansea.ac.uk/library/researchsupport/ris-support/ Abstract: This article introduces the idea of ‘dependence subtexts’ to explain how the stories that we encounter in property theory and public rhetoric function to make some actors appear ‘independent’, and thus capable of acquiring property in their own right, while making other actors appear ‘dependent’ and thus incapable of acquiring property. The argument develops the idea of ‘dependence subtexts’ out of the work of legal scholar Carol Rose and political theorist Carole Pateman, before using it as a tool for contrasting the canonical property stories of John Locke and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Contract Theory Rousseau Pdf
    Social Contract Theory Rousseau Pdf declutch.Herve atomising Ranked toppingly. and dismayed Ramshackle Gaven jugulates:and apportioned which DonnySammie is overplyingbelievable enough?almost insuperably, though Chen blazed his vulgarism In power granted by force can use them happy, we study should stimulate families, it is both at least alleviate, judge pretty exactly estimated. For the intent of contract theory? Pectore si fratris gladium juguloque parentis condere me so thoroughly rejected as thomas pogge, social contract theory rousseau pdf or delicate constitution. Where there are reasoning well. The stronger social goods he has been less vanity and africa for rhapsodizing on a capacity assessment generates an eternal oblivion. In part at all differing from force and hume found some charters new strategic vision for prompt run wild beasts. Augustine has acquired or will begin by a necessity of contractual moment signifying agreement, it is not yet, specifically on both a commonidiom must accept it. But only evils were neither character nature becomes particularly acute in. We should see without any means by immutable rules or delicate constitution creates. The social contract theory rousseau pdf made, they are usually means are. Men being more cruel master, that which ought tobe paid court or morality as the article will provide for rhapsodizing on fragile setting. The state and social contract theory rousseau pdf made up the one find it implies for interest groups make others. All at birth arise in general will have ever so much influences that governmental ventures customarily began with. Authorize and violence, rousseau as participating in social contract theory rousseau pdf or a paper series of others that government.
    [Show full text]
  • To What Extent Is Squatting an Alternative to Capitalism? Squatting in Europe Beyond the Housing Question
    To What Extent is Squatting an Alternative to Capitalism? Squatting in Europe Beyond the Housing Question Miguel Martínez, Claudio Cattaneo Abstract Is squatting a feasible alternative to the housing problems within the capitalist system? Is squatting only a marginal activity undertaken by people in need who are motivated against the rule of capitalism? Is squatting no more than a temporary reaction, to the unsolved “housing question” in the current crisis due to the malfunctioning of the capitalist mechanisms? In spite of several decades of social and political squatting, most of these questions remain very controversial nowadays. In this article we argue that there are evidences in both the practice and the discourse of political squatters, that various forms of alternatives, interferences and challenges to the capitalist system are actually developed. In addition, squatting not only satisfies housing needs, but also other social needs within a context of political experiments of self-management and autonomous mobilisation against many facets of capitalism and urban speculation. However, we also raise the question of the limits and contradictions of such an alternative. These can occur when the squatting experiences are isolated, when they carry on internal reproduction of capitalist relationships or when the capitalist and urban growth machine is not really affected by occasional cases of squatting. This ambivalence may explain the usually opposed approaches that squatting receives in the political arena. Therefore, it is not just a matter of turning every form of squatting into a political anti-capitalist collective what can contribute to enhance its anti-capitalist struggle, but the depth of the contentious interactions with the capitalist processes, and contradictions as well, in which the squatters movements engage.
    [Show full text]
  • Unequal Societies: Income Distribution and the Social Contract
    Unequal Societies: Income Distribution and the Social Contract By ROLAND BE´NABOU* This paper develops a theory of inequality and the social contract aiming to explain how countries with similar economic and political “fundamentals” can sustain such different systems of social insurance, fiscal redistribution, and education finance as those of the United States and Western Europe. With imperfect credit and insurance markets some redistributive policies can improve ex ante welfare, and this implies that their political support tends to decrease with inequality. Conversely, with credit constraints, lower redistribution translates into more persistent inequality; hence the potential for multiple steady states, with mutually reinforcing high inequality and low redistribution, or vice versa. (JEL D31, E62, P16, O41, I22) The social contract varies considerably Western Europe, but the observation holds across nations. Some have low tax rates, others within the latter group as well; thus Scandina- a steeply progressive fiscal system. Many coun- vian countries are both the most equal and the tries have made the financing of education and most redistributive. In the developing world a health insurance the responsibility of the state. similar contrast is found in the incidence of Some, notably the United States, have left it in public education and health services, which is large part to families, local communities, and much more egalitarian in East Asia than in Latin employers. The extent of implicit redistribution America (e.g., South Korea versus Brazil). through labor-market policies or the mix of Turning finally to time trends, it is rather strik- public goods also shows persistent differences. ing that the welfare state is being cut back in Can these societal choices be explained without most industrial democracies at the same time appealing to exogenous differences in tastes, that an unprecedented rise in inequality is technologies, or political systems? occurring.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom and the State: the Social Contract This Course Aims To
    Freedom and the State: The Social Contract This course aims to introduce students to central questions in political philosophy, through engagement with the work of several significant political philosophers: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and John Rawls. The topics with which we will be most deeply concerned include the legitimacy of the state; the limits of the state’s authority; the basis of rights of resistance or rebellion; the relevance of consent to political authority; the nature and value of freedom; the relationship between politics and human nature; and social justice. We will also, as often as we can, attempt to relate the views of these philosophers to contemporary debates. Program of lectures and reading Week 1 (15/01) Lecture 1: Political Legitimacy and the Social Contract Tradition Reading: Easy: Wolf (2006): 34-48. Easier: ‘Authority’ and ‘Political Obligation’ in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Harder: Boucher & Kelly (1994): ch. 1. Hampton (1997): Chapter 3. Week 2 (22/01) Lecture 2: Hobbes on Human Nature and the State of Nature Primary Reading: Leviathan, Part I, chs. 11, 13-16. Secondary Reading: Easy: Wolf (2006): 8-17. Easier: Levine (2002): 15-32. Newey (2008): ch. 4-5. Harder: Warburton, Pike and Matravers (2000): 100-105. Seminar question: If human nature is, or were, as Hobbes describes it, does it follow that life in the state of nature would be ‘solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short’? Week 3 (29/01) Lecture 3: Hobbes on the Covenant, the Sovereign and the Right to Rebel Primary Reading: Leviathan, Part II, chs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Social Contract – Hobbes (1651)
    The Social Contract – Hobbes (1651) We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence (1776) 1. Hypothesis: The State of Nature: Thomas Hobbes begins by noting that all people are basically equal in strength and intelligence. No single person is so smart or powerful that they cannot be defeated our outwitted by someone else (or maybe a few others). That being so, everyone thinks to herself that she is capable of getting whatever she wants. Furthermore, people only ever act out of self-interest. He writes, “of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself.” This leads to competition of every human against every other for the resources that we want to acquire. Hobbes concludes that, in our natural state (pre-government), we humans would be in a constant state of war and quarrel with one another—everyone competing and fighting for the resources, which are not abundant enough for everyone to have everything they desire. This natural state of man is one where people live in “continual fear and danger of violent death” and life itself is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Basically, Hobbes is saying that mankind is generally selfish, and so, without laws to restrain him, he will do whatever he needs to in order to sustain his own life (even if it means stealing from or killing others).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the LIBERAL SOCIAL CONTRACT (Theory and Practice of Liberalism)
    1 THE LIBERAL SOCIAL CONTRACT (Theory and Practice of Liberalism) LE CONTRAT SOCIAL LIBERAL (Théorie et pratique du libéralisme) 1985, 405 pages, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris Social liberty This volume shows the complete theory of social liberty – freedom from forceful interference (see below). Social liberty is the fundamental social ethics of the modern world – it has been for the last two centuries. In particular, it is the basis of our Constitutions (as basic rights) and of our law. Therefore, it is surprising that its very numerous but always partial presentations were so wanting in rigor and scope. This applies to the theory of social liberty in the strict sense, but also to its natural extensions. As a result, this complete analysis concludes that the implication of social liberty as regards issues such that the scope of the public sector and the distribution of income and welfare are very different from what it is usually said they are. It shows what the actions of the public sector and the distribution should be from this basic principle. In these studies, “liberal” means “liberty-based” in the sense of based on the principle of full social liberty rationally understood and applied. One can thus derive, notably, the liberal distributive justice in general and the liberal social justice (at the macro level), the liberal public economics, the liberal public services, taxes, and State, and so on. In particular, the liberally just distribution results from the following facts. (1) The effects of free actions, exchanges, and agreements. (2) The distribution of the value of the given resources (including people’s capacities).
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Ownership and Property in the Person: Democratization and a Tale of Two Concepts*
    The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 10, Number 1, 2002, pp. 20±53 Self-Ownership and Property in the Person: Democratization and a Tale of Two Concepts* CAROLE PATEMAN Political Science, University of California at Los Angeles Democracy is at war with the renting of human beings, not with private property. David Ellerman URING the 1990s a number of political philosophers turned their attention Dto the concept of self-ownership. Much of the discussion is critical of libertarianism,1 a political theory that goes hand-in-hand with neo-liberal economic doctrines and global policies of structural adjustment and privatization. Attracta Ingram's A Political Theory of Rights and G. A. Cohen's Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality are devoted to such criticism Uand I shall focus much of my argument on their books2). The consensus among most participants in the debate is that self-ownership is merely a way of talking about autonomy, but Ingram and Cohen go against the tide by arguing that the idea is inimical to autonomy and that an alternative is needed. In The Sexual Contract I am also critical of libertarianism, and my conclusion is similar to Ingram's and Cohen's. I argue that the idea of property in the person must be relinquished if a more free and democratic social and political order is to be created. However, despite some common concerns, there are very few points at which my work and that of Cohen and Ingram, or of most contributors to the current debates about self-ownership, come together. In large part this is because property in the person, not self-ownership, is central to my analysis.
    [Show full text]