The notion of social contract theory is explained by the early experiences of a human being who used to live in the conditions of nature. In their existence, they had no administration and regulations to guide them. Sufferings and oppressions were experienced on the sectors of the society. The base of social contract theory is formed on the plan of a contractual concurrence amongst the persons and the state (Laskar, 2013). In the plan, the authority of the sovereign is validated by the supposed social contract through which the population agrees to conform in all aspects in return for the assurance of peace and protection. These aspects were not available in the earlier ‘state of nature' that existed before the contract. Through the contract that was supposed to overcome hardships, two pacts emerged which included ‘Pactum Unionis,’ and ‘Pactum Subjectionis' (Laskar, 2013). Hence, the administration, authority, the state or the sovereign came into existence because of the two pacts
Through the first agreement of unions, persons sought safeguard of their lives and possessions. A society was formed persons agreed to respect one another and exist in peacefulness and agreement. In the subsequent agreement of subjectionis, individuals joined collectively and promised to comply with leadership and gave in the entire or section of their liberty and privileges to a sovereign (Laskar, 2013). In return, the safeguard of life and belongings plus the freedom to a particular extent was promised by the authority for everybody. An agreement was made to exist collectively under universal regulations, and form an implementation system for the social contract and the regulations that are comprised in it. Hence, the state or the administration has legitimacy and ethical right to utilize state authority as justified by the rules to offer security and protection to the population.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Theories
Throughout history, Political philosophers have had divergent opinions on how the administrations rule over the population. According to Thomas Hobbes notion of social contract, before the social pact, the human being existed in the condition of nature, a life that was filled with chaotic situations of constant fear and selfishness (Williams, n.d.). Human being possesses natural wants to order and safety, and have self-security as well as individual preservation. In addition to avoiding pain and misery, human being got into a pact. This thought of self-safety and own preservation is inbuilt in human's nature (Lloyd, & Sreedha, 2018). So, to achieve it, they willingly submitted all their freedoms and liberties to some power by this pact which must command compliance. Consequently to the pact, the highest right is to safeguard and defend their being and possessions. This resulted in the establishment of the institute of the sovereign or monarch, who ought to be the supreme leader. The subordinates had no liberties against the supreme ruler or the authority and are to obey in all circumstances however unworthy or awful the authority might present.
Nevertheless, Hobbes put ethical responsibilities on the authority that need to be guided by the natural regulation. Thus it could be outlined that there was support of absolutism by Hobbes. In his view, the regulation depends on the sanction of the authority and the administration that does not use power has no strength to provide safety to the human being (Lloyd, & Sreedha, 2018). Hence, he emphasized that public law is the actual regulation as it is authorized and implemented by the ruler, therefore he supported the belief of ‘ might is always right' .
John Locke is of a different view, according to him, the human being existed in nature's state, but his perception of the state is dissimilar from Hobbes. His perception of nature’s state is not as wretched as that of Hobbesian theory. Locke outlined the condition of nature as a ‘ Golden age' , meaning it was rationally good and pleasant, although the possessions were not safe (Laskar, 2013). According to him, it was a condition of peacefulness, kindness, communal assistance, as well as conservation. In that situation, human beings had all liberties that nature could offer. This he justifies by outlining that in nature’s state, the natural situation of human was a condition of ideal and absolute freedom to perform individual's existence as one likes, free from meddling from others (Tuckness, 2016). In that condition, there was equality and self-regulating. However, this does not mean it was free to do anything that one pleases. Although it was a condition where there existed no public regulator or administration to discipline wrongdoers, the state of nature was not without morality. He outlines the state as pre-political, but not pre-moral (Moseley, n.d.). Individuals are understood to be equivalent to each other in such a condition and hence similarly able to realizing and regulated by nature's rule. Therefore, nature’s condition was a condition of freedom, where individuals were at liberty to follow their welfares and schemes, away from meddling and, due to nature’s law and the limitations that it inflicts on individuals, it was relatively peaceful.
On his view, Jean Jacques Rousseau outlined social contract as not being a past reality but a theoretical creation of purpose (Bertram, 2017). Before the social contract, existence in nature’s state was pleasing, and there was impartiality amongst human beings. Nevertheless, humanity encountered certain transformations as time passed. As the populace enlarged, the manner by which individuals could please their wants had to transform. Individuals started to live jointly in small family units, and consequently into small neighborhoods (Delaney, n.d.). There was the introduction of labor division, both in and amongst families, plus inventions and innovations making it easier to exist, aiding to the rise in leisure time (Laskar, 2013). The leisure periods led made individuals make comparisons among themselves and others, ensuing in civic principles, resulting in dishonor and jealousy as well as arrogance and disrespect. The discovery of private possession constituted the essential moment in human being's evolution from the straightforward, clean condition into the one featured by competition, greediness, inequality, vice, and conceit (Laskar, 2013). According to Rousseau, the discovery of possessions constituted human beings fall from the state of natural elegance. Due to this, they gave their rights to a single person.
Strengths and Weakness of the Theories
Hobbes discusses that if the ruler is to fulfill his duty, there is a need for him to have sufficient power to overcome any other probable power within the state. Besides, if the ruler is restricted, then he would be restricted by some other entity, in which scenario either that entity would be superior, or there would exist a persistent struggle among the two (Horowitz, n.d.). Or if the authority is not restricted each person could decide for themselves. However, Hobbes notion of absolutism is entirely a vague notion in the present situation. The absolute authority of the ruler is not in line with the rule of regulation, as the supreme power in one ruler, brings uncertainty.
Locke argues that the condition exists to safeguard and guard the natural freedoms of its population. When the authority fails in its duty, the public has the liberty and duty to remove their support and even rebel. However, Locke notion of nature’s state is unclear as any disagreement concerning possessions most of the time leads to disorder in any community (Laskar, 2013). Rousseau encourages individual freedoms. His theory emphasizes the liberty and freedom of persons. The theory outlines that a human being is born free and should not be restricted by authorities. Nevertheless, the theory cannot be applied in a modern situation where enforcement of regulations, comprising criminal laws, is not a limitation on personal freedom.
Conclusion/Issue
A social contract theory could be observed in practice in a scenario comprising of two individuals. For instance, Peter accuses David of stealing $ 2,000 from him. David denies having taken from him. In a state of natural regulation, the two men could have settled the issue by aggressiveness or Peter could have possibly broken into David's house to take back his cash. However, when a social contract has been utilized there is the formation of a cohesive community, regulated by law and both men should put their trust in the legal structure. In their state, the public has voted representatives to run the administration, which comprises three separate arms, each checking the other. Every member of the community has given up his liberty of taking issues into his judgment, expecting that everybody else would do the same. In the social contract theory, nobody is at liberty to get revenge on individuals they suppose have offended them.
References
Bertram, C. (2017). Jean Jacques Rousseau. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Retrieved on 30 January 2019, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/
Delaney, J. J. (n.d.). Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Retrieved on 30 January 2019, from https://www.iep.utm.edu/rousseau/#H4
Horowitz, A. (n.d.). Hobbes’s strengths and weaknesses. York University . Retrieved on 30 January 2019, from http://www.yorku.ca/horowitz/courses/lectures/25_hobbes_strenghts.html
Laskar, M. E. (2013). Summary of social contract theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. ResearchGate . Retrieved on 30 January 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261181816_Summary_of_Social_Contract_Theory_by_Hobbes_Locke_and_Rousseau
Lloyd, S. A., & Sreedha, S. (2018). Hobbes's moral and political philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Retrieved on 30 January 2019, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
Moseley, A. (n.d.). Locke, John: Political philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Retrieved on 30 January 2019, from https://www.iep.utm.edu/locke-po/
Tuckness, A. (2016). Locke's political philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Retrieved on 30 January 2019, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
Williams, G. (n.d.). Hobbes, Thomas: Moral and political philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved on 30 January 2019, from https://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/
