In political and moral philosophy, social contract model or theory originated during the Age of Enlightenment and is concerned with the legality of the States power over people. Arguments of the social contract are that individuals have the consent either tacitly or explicitly to give up a portion of their freedom and be submissive to the power of the leader, in exchange for the shield of their lingering privileges. Thus, the associations amongst lawful and natural rights are a topic of social contract theory. Historically, the concept of social contract theory was originally modelled by Glaucon, as explained by Plato. According to them, by nature to do justice is good: while to suffer injustice is bad, but that the bad is greater than the good. Also, when men have both suffered and done injustice, and they have an experience of both, not being able to avoid one and obtain the other, they usually think that they had better agree amongst themselves to have neither.
The social contract theory also appears in Crito , which is another discourse from Plato . Over time, social contract theory became widespread after Epicurus who was the first philosopher to view justice as a social contract, and not as self-existent as a result of divine intervention. The central statement of the social contract approach is that political order and law are not natural occurrences, but are created by human beings ( Friend 2015) . The political order and social contract it creates are meant in the direction of an end, the benefit of the people involved, and it is legitimate to the extent that they achieve their part of the bargain. Philosophers argue that the government is not a party to the original indenture and the nationals are not obliged to submit to the government in a case where it is too weak to act efficiently to overpower civil unrest and factionalism. Other social contract theorist claim that, when a government is unable to secure their Locke (National Rights) or content the best interest of the society also known as the General Will, nationals can pull out their obligation to obey, or in other cases change their rulers through elections or violence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
John Locke (1632-1704) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) developed their political theories at the time of social, political, and religious upheaval in England. These two were archetypical enlightenment idols well conversant with the philosophical and scientific concerns of their era ( Hobbes 2016) . Preceding the civil war in England, the ruling authority was theocratic. This move, therefore, saw kings as exquisitely appointed and their subjects divinely decreed to obey them. The government was believed to be of God rather than a human contraption. There existed a Contract of submission theory which dictated that the rulers are responsible for offering protection and providing justice to their subjects in return for their compliance. The Enlightenment was the period beginning mid-17 th century till the end of the 18 th century. During this era, people drifted away from religious based or theological thinking to review founded on scientific rational.
The " Enlightenment ” came about with the advancement of the " Social contract theory " which Locke and Hobbes were the chief proponents. This philosophy is fundamentally an ethically vindicated covenant made between persons that will bring a systematized culture into being ( Hobbes 2016) . Hobbes and Locke social contract theory begins with the basic concept that man is in a primitive state without formal checks on their behaviors or political authority. Hence, the two argue that the stateless autonomous condition may not prevail if a man was to be moved from his primitive existence. The only way this may be achieved is if a man was to be guided by natural law, which would aid them to develop a political and social life. Arguments put forth by Locke and Hobbes are that: the state arises from social contract or voluntary agreement made by people who acknowledge that the founding of an independent authority could protect them from insecurities of the state of nature.
The original social contract, not the theoretical one designed by Hobbes and Locke, was driven by the need for establishing rule-based justice to avoid blood feuds and perpetual vendettas. Where the state is still weak, the private justice resulted in boundless rounds of disorder and revenge killings. So people had to surrender their natural rights to avenge the killing of their kin in exchange for a promise by the ruling authority to revenge their murder in an orderly manner ( PERRY et al. 2016) . In case the state refuses, as a matter of policy, to execute murders in any circumstance, it denies the reason people surrender to the government, and it also undermines its legitimacy. We have heard claims that keeping people in prison for life is much cheaper as compared to executions. Consequently, many individuals would argue that public and painful executions would be more restrictive than the current system of locking up people for years, then killing them before they end their life. This, therefore, becomes so hard for the public to support the death penalty and this makes its implementation close to impossible.
References
Friend, C. (2015). Social contract theory. The Internet encyclopedia of philosophy: A peer-reviewed academic resource.
Hobbes, T. (2016). Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan (Longman Library of Primary Sources in Philosophy) . Routledge.
Perry, D. C., Villamizar-Duarte, Natalia., & Pagano, M. A. (2016). The Social contract: A political and economic overview. Remaking the urban social contract: Health, energy, and the environment , 3-32.
