SUMMARY of The Social Contract
The state of nature and first contract - When we come under a
agreement, we sign a contract - for mutual benefit. Everyones
expectations are clear, as are the consequences of failing to meet those
expectations.
Society prior to contract is said to be “the state of nature” .
Historically, we may not have ever been in a state of nature, but
contract theorists use this idea to explain why rules for society, a
contract, are desirable. Anyway….What would it be like - at the least
no rules, no laws , no authorities whatsoever. Life would turn out to
be bad as no deterrent for bad behavior: it’d be every man, woman
and child for him or herself, it seems. What can get human beings
out of a state of nature are reasons- namely, fear of death, a desire
for comfortable living, and the hope to attain this comfortable living
through work. Since they cannot satisfy these passions sufficiently
in a state of nature, human beings have some inclination to
establish a state of peace. Reason provides the means of establishing
this state of peace by making us aware of certain Laws of Nature.
The contract allowed us to peacefully live together with the assurance
that no one can simply harm us or take our property without
consequence. The authority guaranteed everyone protection of life,
property and to a certain extent liberty. Contract theorists argue that
most people would freely enter into a contract to secure these benefits.
A contract has some costs though: to receive the advantages of an
ordered society, everyone agrees to give up some benefits they had in
the state of nature. Hobbes says we must give up “the right of nature”
or the ability to judge for ourselves what counts as our “preservation.
This idea of self preservation and self protection are inherent in one’s
nature & in order to achieve this, they voluntarily surrendered all
their rights and freedoms to some authority - by this contract - who
must command obedience.
The agreement to form government - A newly-formed society needs
a mechanism for making decisions. Hobbes argues that the sole
decision-making authority should be an almighty ruler, subjects
have no right whatsoever against the sovereign and that he is to be
obeyed, however bad or unworthy he might be. However Hobbes placed
moral obligations on the sovereign who shall be bound by natural
law. The state of nature was pre-political but not pre-moral.
In the opinion of Hobbes, “law is dependent upon the sanction of the
sovereign and the government without sword are but words and of no
strength to secure a man at all.”
[Thus, He upheld the principle of might is always right.]
Locke’s proposal for the creation of govt. reflects a more democratic
approach in the sense of majority rule. According to Locke, the
primary function of govt. is to pass laws through a majority vote
regarding the protection of rights, especially one’s right to property .
Property plays an essential role in Locke’s argument for civil
government. private property is created when a person mixes his
labour with the raw materials of nature. It is the linchpin of Locke’s
argument because - it is the protection of their property along with
themselves - that a man seeks when they decide to abandon the state
of nature.
It should be noted that [Under the contract, man did not surrender
all their rights to one single individual, but they surrendered only
the right to preserve / maintain order and enforce the law of nature.
The individual retained with them the other rights, i.e., right to life,
liberty and estate because these rights were considered natural and
inalienable rights of men.]
Having created a political society and government through their
consent, men then gained three things which they lacked in the
State of Nature: laws, judges to adjudicate laws, and the executive
power necessary to enforce these laws.
ROUSSEAU on Human Nature:
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) described the state of nature—
what life was like before governments were instituted—as the state
“most suitable to mankind.” He broke sharply with his
contemporaries by arguing that people were good prior to the
development of civilization, but have been corrupted by society.
[Rousseau’s central philosophical goal was to identify the ways
society had distorted humanity’s innately good tendencies and
characteristics]
Humanity in the State of Nature- Writing prior to Rousseau,
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) assumed that life in the state of
nature would be intolerable. He argued that without police, courts,
and other authorities to protect people’s lives and belongings from
those who would take them, life would be “solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short.”
Hobbes believed this violence was a result of human nature: human
beings are never content merely to satisfy their own needs because
they have “a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that
cease only in death.”The desire for domination over others inevitably
leads to conflict. Hobbes argued that government was justified
because only it could prevent the violence endemic to the state of
nature.
[Rousseau’s picture of the state of nature, and human nature, was
the opposite]
He argued that people in their natural state were motivated by what
he called amour de soi: a “love of self.” This meant living primarily
to eat, sleep and reproduce for the continuation of the species.People
with such minimal desires could meet their needs without resorting
to violence and so life was peaceful, not the war “of every man,
against every man” that Hobbes theorized.
What went wrong - While Hobbes’ estimation of human nature
might better reflect our experiences, Rousseau argued that we should
not assume that human beings had always been so selfish and
driven to conflict.
Rousseau proposed that the development of society had changed
human nature itself, corrupting our natural goodness. It was the
invention of private property, which constituted the pivotal moment
in humanities evolution out of a simple, pure state - into- one
characterized by greed, competition, envy , pride, vanity , inequality
and vice.
Why did human motivation change? - In Rousseau’s word - As
people formed larger groups beyond the family, being noticed and
esteemed became valuable, as a result, people began to desire more
than mere survival.
[Rousseau argued that the novel value of attention and prestige “was
the first step towards inequality, and . . . towards vice.”]
So , With the advent of society, there was a new driver of human
action: amour propre…aimed at one’s comparative worth. It is
inherently competitive, focused on standing out and being noticed
among the crowd. And, crucially, it is a value that must be had at
another’s expense: we cannot all be the best.
Individuals feel generally equal to others and are unwilling to
accept socially created inequalities that confer lower status upon
them, because this lower status threatens their self-esteem. Thus,
social inequality succeeds in shifting their sense of self-esteem from
what they think of themselves to what others think of them
Now now it might seem like a form of self love but he argues that its
actually not and only when “inflamed’ it becomes harmful, i.e where
rather living for ourselves, we enter a state of “being-for-others”.
[Rather than living simply and modestly, concerned with
satisfying our own needs, society drives us towards competition and
division, At worst, this competition makes us seek superiority over
others, after all it does focus on standing out]
What Can Be Done? - He thought this tension could be mediated by
a “general will”: a representation of the collective interest of the
members of the society. On Rousseau’s view, political rulings are
illegitimate if they do not consider the perspectives of all community
members.
With the general will in place, individuals will then see their own
desires represented as part of the community, individuals flourish
when the rest of society flourishes. When this is the case, amour
propre is no longer destructive; one need not subjugate others for the
sake of one’s own well-being.
As it is …….book itself [ The social contract]
- Social order is a sacred right which serves as a basis for all others.
But the right does not come from nature; it is founded upon
conventions.
- Family : the most ancient and the only natural society.
- Everybody is dependent for self preservation but as soon as this
needs ceases, the natural bond is dissolved.
- If they remain united, however, it is no longer naturally but rather
voluntarily; and the family itself is maintained only by
agreement.
- His first law is that of self preservation, one’s first cares are those
which he owes to himself.
- Family ; first model of political society, father being the chief &
people are the children - alienate their liberty only for their benefit
- Aristotle said before any of them that men weren’t naturally
equal, but that some were born for slavery, and others for
domination.
- If then, there are slaves by nature, it is also because there have been
slaves contrary to nature. Force made the first slaves, their
cowardice perpetuated them.
- “How do I know whether, by the verification of titles, I should not
find myself the legitimate king of mankind?”
- The strongest is never strong enough to be always master, unless
he transforms his strength into right and obedience to duty. From
this comes the right of the strongest.
- If it is the strength that makes right; any force which overcomes
first succeeds to the right.
- Now , what is a right which perishes when strength ceases?
- “It is not essential to obey out of morality if obedience must be
given to strength, and it is not required to obey if obedience is not
demanded.”
- Let us agree, then, that strength does not make right, and that
obedience only to legitimate power is obligatory.
If justice were the same as the power to gain advantage
over others, then the most powerful individuals would
always be the most just and morally right. Moreover,
if justice were the power to force an individual to yield
to a particular demand, then there would be no
obligation for an individual to comply with a lawful
authority unless that authority had the power to force
the individual to comply. Thus, the question of whether
justice can be achieved in society may not depend on
whether individuals can be forced to comply with civil
authority but on whether individuals and civil
authority can act in harmony with, and ful ll their
moral obligations toward, each other. Moreover,
there may be a moral obligation to comply with civil
authority only if that authority is legitimate (i.e. if
that authority is based on a fair and just agreement
among the members of society).
- Since no man has natural authority over his kind, and since
strength does not make right, there remains only agreement for
the basis of all legitimate authority among men.
- Now a man who makes himself the slave of another; sells himself,
at the least for his subsistence.
- But why would people do? A king is far from furnishing his
subjects their subsistence, he draws his from them. Lol XD
- It will be said that the despot assures his subjects civil
tranquillity; so be it; but what do they gain by it anyway.
https://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/rousseau.html
fi
