The state of the social contract was raised to prevent the state of nature which required everyone is looking out just for her/himself. Before the social contract theory, citizens had no government and therefore had no laws to regulate them. However, with the oppression and hardships in the society, they had agreements of the pact of unions and pact of subjections to overcome them. With the two agreements, citizens respected each other and lived in peace and harmony. Besides, they united together and decided to obey an authority which guaranteed their protection. Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke are the known proponents of the SCT and have different views in terms of the natural state of man and the government.
The government provides security by overcoming the selfish desires of the individual citizen since the agreement that led to the creation of the SCT is citizens to live in peace and set aside hostile acts under governmental protection. Hobbes points out that it would be dangerous to live under no law, and that the state of nature for human beings is a war against all. He argues that the government must have every power over citizens for effective peace. His perspective is that citizens made an unbreakable agreement with the government. Often, people assert the rights to privacy, religion or even speech when they feel the government is violating their rights or another individual is obstructing their freedoms. Rousseau and Hobbes hold different views on basis and legitimacy of SCT. According to Hobbes, it is a process where an individual requires central power for self-preservation which is inevitable ( Hobbes) . On the other hand, Rousseau believes that there is the need for a social contract but it creates inequalities among individuals. If a person is fair and just in his/ her actions, the social contract becomes both beneficial to him and others. Rousseau strongly believes that social contract makes an individual greedy and individualistic but for Hobbes social contract provides the best form of self-protection ( Inoguchi, 2016) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The seatbelt law is a common debate around the social contract as individuals believe that the state is infringing on their liberties, yet so many people continue to die for the lack of wearing them. The seatbelt law protects individuals in case of a serious accident. is a paternalistic law, that is, it forces an individual to refrain from acting or act as it is believed to bring out the best interest of another individual. People think that following the rule is depriving them their right to privacy. According to the SCT, the state responsibility is to provide protection to the citizens who in return give away some rights. In Social contract, an individual gives up his/her rights to the state. Rousseau is limited to the liberty and freedom of the citizens. Hobbes sees the creation of political societies as the states need for peace and order which is a great necessity for society ( Inoguchi, 2016) .
The state has a greater political authority and shapes the expectations and trust levels of the citizens. It, therefore, becomes unethical for individual citizens to ignore the governmental requirement that they buckle up their seat belts which are meant to protect their lives and other citizens. American citizens place a high value on government provision of freedom, security and prosperity, and for it to achieve that it requires a sense of responsibility and cooperation from the citizens. Rousseau General will theory is that the state and law should conform to the general willingness of the citizens. Individuals get free civil liberties and in exchange parts with the natural laws. The general will requires citizens to blind obedience to the laws like wearing seatbelts. Locke holds on that the importance of the law and the government upholds and protects the rights of the citizens. The law of wearing seat belts while operating motor vehicles protects all citizens. In Locke’s view “unlimited sovereignty is contrary to natural law.”( Simmons, 2015)
Citizens should not break the laws unless the benefits of social living are granted to some individuals and not to others. People should accept the burdens of obeying the laws in order to enjoy the benefits. Hobbes argues that its human nature to be self-interested and reasonable, in that, people pursue what they believe is to their own benefits. He also states that whatever the government does is just. It is in the citizen’s self-interest and benefits to live in a system where people follow rules. Rousseau point of view is that the government must ensure that individuals have freedom and liberty protected while Locke states that that the state should see to it that justice is achieved. It would be challenging for an individual to survive by himself without a social contract since with time he has undergone to a civilized society from the natural state. The social contract creates social order and makes it possible for people to unify and produce social goods. For the social contract to be fruitful, all citizens should follow the rules and uphold morality.
There is no breach of social contract with government posing laws that require people wear safety belts to ensure their safety. The social contract was developed to protect the citizens and make sure that every person in the society lives in a safe and stable country, therefore, they should be grateful that government has made efforts to ensure they are safe. The government does not infringe on the rights of individuals when it comes to this law as it is only doing it for the good of people.
References
Hobbes, T. Social Contract Theory .
Inoguchi, T., & Le, L. T. Q. (2016). Toward Modelling a Global Social Contract: Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. Japanese Journal of Political Science , 17 (03), 489-522.
Simmons, A. J. (2015). Locke on the Social Contract. A Companion to Locke , 413.
