Introduction
An individual’s moral and political responsibilities are dependent upon the consent to shape the overall population in which they stay. Therefore, people co-exist in a community with an agreement that creates a moral rule of behavior to govern them. Some people believe if they live in a societal contract, they live morally by their choice and not because of a request from a divine being. Understanding the state of nature is key to self–realization and aids in attaining freedom. The following paper presents a reflection on the social contract tradition, focusing on the works of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. The document contains a detailed description of the origin stories of political orders constructed by the named philosophers, their legitimacy, similarities, and differences.
Thomas Hobbes’s political order
In 1642, a civil war broke out over England since there was a dispute regarding the country’s rule. Two conflicting parties ruled the country: the parliament and King Charles I. Nine years later, the civil war ended with parliament becoming victorious. Soon after, an English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, began his writing career. He believed in the power of the kings since, in his writings, he made a defense of their absolute power. The book’s title referred to a fanciful ocean beast that swallowed entire ships. He compared the Leviathan to a strong government to force order on residents. Nonetheless, he assumed that human beings are similar mentally and physically, and none is susceptible to domination by others. Also, he assumed that people fear death and that the desire to preserve life is vital.
He started the Leviathan by portraying the state of nature where all individuals were viewed as being the same. Everyone did all they could to ensure they survived and did not suffer dire consequences such as death. As a result, everyone suffered from “continued fear and danger of violent death” (Taylor, 2018). He argued that a man’s life in a state of nature without standard power would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Kanatli, 2021). There were neither police nor laws to reestablish order in the state of nature, and rewarding cooperation was an impossible duty. Therefore, the core role of the administration is to restore law and order unlike Locke, as discussed later, believed the role of the government was to protect citizens. The main way forward for the people was to make an incomparable ability to force harmony on everyone. Whenever one thinks of the word solitary, as mentioned by Hobbes, it connotes confinement and unhappiness, which are primarily negative. He used the word “solitude” to describe human nature’s negative form, hence needing a standard power.
Hobbes thought that the state of nature is a thing that should be circumvented at all costs. He argues that if one wants to become happy and avoid violent death, one should refrain from the state of nature. This is applicable only if it is agreeable that violent death is what we fear the most and thus refrain if we decide that an unaccountable sovereign stands between people and the state of nature.
Sovereignty makes and enforces laws that ensure a secure and peaceful society. This enables people to have privileges to live, to have freedom, and to own wealth, a concept Hobbes referred to as a social contract. His concept of creating public authority depended on English agreement regulation. Individuals would agree to recognize their regular privileges of correspondence and opportunity and, therefore, accord absolute capacity to a leader who could be an individual or a consortium. He had a belief that an administration driven by a lord was the best structure that power would assume. A social contract was an agreement that existed among people and not between people and the king (Kanatli, 2021). Once people had accorded the capacity to the Lord, they restrained no privilege to resist them in any case.
Afterward, he cautioned the congregation against intruding with the king’s administration. He had a premonition religion that might contribute to the outbreak of a civil war. He argued that the church was supposed to be a part of the Lord’s government and, thus, not an independent entity. Along these lines, the ruler had all the command over every one of the strict undertakings. At the point when contention arises between the heavenly and illustrious regulation, an individual decides to either submit to the ruler or pick demise.
Considering the fearsome psychological study specified by Hobbes, people are the state of battle in the condition of nature. In such cases, agreements can be made between individuals, but they have no obligation to fulfill them since they understand that there is no punishment if they infringe on the covenant. The order of the problem is a central part of political philosophy since it is the question of how and why it is that social orders exist in a society. Moreover, in such a war of one against all, there exists no standard power to establish the perceptions of right or wrong, just and unjust; hence, everything done is considered just. Therefore, he believed that unfairness is a social construct created by humans concerning their communities and not as individuals in seclusion. The social connection between people is exemplified in the impression of a commonwealth whose essential job is to make the ideas of foul play by making and implementing regulations.
Moreover, the idea of the commonwealth is essential in curtailing the natural condition of anarchy, a state of lawlessness. The turmoil makes dread, and since people are undeniably less leaned to believe others, they are less inclined to add to the benefit of everyone. In such a state, humans are lonely beings, regularly on guard for their lives since they are surrounded by insecurity. The solution provided by Hobbes to such a situation is the “law of nature …, a percept, found out by reason” (Lloyd, 2018). As mentioned earlier, people need to look for harmony by making agreements with others, and they ought to abide by the agreements they stipulate. Consequentially, the commonwealth has a role in eliminating the fear of humans against one another.
Locke’s Political Order
Locke was born after the English Civil War, and his writings were in favor of the protestant legislative house against Lord James II. The magnificent upheaval diminished the ruler’s power and empowered the parliament to become the expert in the English government. He agreed with Hobbes that the social contract was essential for restoring peace. Nevertheless, he showed disagreement with Hobbes’ ideas on several significant points. To begin with, he contended that regular freedoms such as the right to live, the right to self-determination, and the right to property were present in the state of nature. However, these rights were “inalienable” and, thus, proved impossible to surrender (Kanatli, 2020). Secondly, he could not help contradicting the social contract since it was not only a covenant among individuals but rather provided a link between them and their leader. However, throughout his work, Locke assumed that an individual’s nature is portrayed by tolerance and reason. Correspondingly to Hobbes, he thought that the sole right to guard the state of nature was sufficiently not. Accordingly, individuals developed a common society to civilly solve clashes.
Locke believed the natural privileges of people restricted the force of the rulers. In contrast to the ideas of Hobbes, the Lord did not possess outright power. The Lords acted distinctly to uphold and safeguard the natural privileges of individuals. The social contracts were broken whenever the ruler violated the rights. If such a scenario occurred, the citizens had the privilege of revolting, thereby creating a new administration. Considering Hobbes’s thoughts that people were not allowed to rebel against the king, this differs from Locke’s thinking. Unlike Hobbes, Locke addressed the privileges of thought, religion, and speech. Hobbes viewed religion as an entity that needed to depend on the king since the Lord feared the former would result in civil war. He denied that coercion should be used to bring people to the true religion. Additionally, the church possesses no coercive powers over its members.
A similarity between Locke’s and Hobbes’s ideas is the belief in the three natural rights: property, life, and liberty. Locke thought that property was the most fundamental natural right, unlike Hobbes, who viewed life, property, and freedom as having equal bear weight. He declared that owners had the freedom to do what they wanted to with their wealth, provided they did not attack the privileges of others. The essence of the government was to promote the public good. This meant not only offering protection to property but also encouraging commerce.
He leaned towards a representative administration like the English government with two chambers. There was a House of Lords comprised of noblemen who had hereditary positions. The other chamber was the House of Commons which consisted of elected members. He maintained that agents should be just men of wealth and business. He thought that sole wealthy adult males had the freedom vote. He valued a mass of individuals without property as ill-suited and did not have the right to cast a ballot or serve in the public authority.
Based on Hobbes’s thinking, people are subject to a monarch. Locke disagrees and claims that men are free and equal against the belief that God made people naturally subject to monarchy (Mujiwati, 2022). Locke suggested that individuals transfer their freedom to the ruling administration to ensure there is steady and agreeable happiness in their lives. He supports the right to revolution since the governments are instituted by the will and knowledge of the people.
Rousseau’s State of Nature
Social contracts existed as a means by which civilized society arose from unfavorable conditions such as anarchy. Rousseau views the state of nature to be peaceful but necessitates a social contract to overcome conflicts arising as society grows. The authority of the state is not in conflict with the free will of individuals since it represents the collective will of which the individual is a part. He reconceived the common agreement as a conservative between the individual and a general will. This was focused on the benefit of all and reflected in the laws of an optimal state. The general will was the desire of the sovereign, which focused on what was best for the state. The most substantial appearance of the general will in a sound state comes as regulation. The latter ought to record what individuals largely crave and need to be pertinent to all state individuals. The regulations also exist to ensure that the state upholds peoples’ freedom, hence guaranteeing their loyalty. He maintained that the current society lays on a bogus common agreement that propagates imbalance and the standard of the rich.
Rousseau had a significant impact on modern philosophy since, through his thoughts, the European Enlightenment ended and further impelled political and moral reasoning into new channels. His reforms contributed to the revolution of music and other arts. He promoted the expression of feelings as opposed to amenable restriction in kinship and love. Furthermore, he presented the faction of religious sentiments for individuals who had disposed of their strict convictions. Rousseau woke individuals up to the delights of nature and made freedom an article of practically all-inclusive goal.
He concurs with Hobbes’s thoughts on the state of nature in that people were not friendly creatures but rather completely lonely. However, in contrast to Hobbes’s view that human life in such a condition must have been “poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” he claims that early humans, although exhibited solitude, had good health and were happy and free (Kanatli, 2021). The passion that generates human vices, such as jealousy, began after societies were formed. He believed that individuals are good essentially yet have been debased by the community. The latter began when they assembled their most memorable cottages, which worked with dwelling together among guys and females, resulting in the growth of families.
The initial days of the development of society seemed to be golden since they were good, but they did not last long. The tender passion of love brought along a horrendous energy of envy. People began comparing their achievements and abilities to significant others, which marked the first step toward inequality. This made them start demanding consideration and respect, and the love they had turned into pride since each individual strived to be better when compared to others. The inauguration of the property further prompted and nurtured inequality and other vices. This made laws and government a necessity to protect property, as stated by Locke.
Additionally, civil society exists to provide peace and protect property. This is a benefit to everybody except for the richest since they have more property and could change their real proprietorship to legitimate possession, keeping the poor confiscated. However, the rich were not happy regardless of their wealth since individuals in the community were perpetually discontented. The organization contributes to individuals hating on each other where their inclinations conflict, and everything they can manage is to conceal their aggression in a veil of civility.
There is a variation in the perception of entrance into society between Locke and Rousseau. Locke argues that once people enter the community, they give up their natural freedom. On the contrary, Rousseau argues that people gain civil privilege once they enter society. He identified the self-preservation concept where people care for themselves and then society, leading to the attainment of their independence. However, both philosophers agree that nobody should be forced to give up their natural privileges to a ruler.
He agrees with Hobbes that under the settlement by which individuals enter common society, they estrange themselves and their freedoms to the entire local area. Notwithstanding, he addresses this as a type of trade of freedoms where people offer up their natural privileges in exchange for social equality. This deal is great since freedoms of questionable worth are surrendered by the person whose acknowledgment relies upon their strength. What is gotten in kind are privileges that are both genuine and authorized by the aggregate power of the local area.
Conclusion
After reviewing the works of philosophers in the social contract, an individual can easily note the similarities and differences of the formers’ thoughts and ideas. They all believed in freedom for solving social order problems even though they had different interpretations of the former. Locke thought that freedom was present when humans were alone, while Rousseau had a belief that liberty existed the moment people created a new order. Hobbes suggested that freedom was only present when there was a monarch. Rousseau’s natural conception state is more favorable than Hobbes’ origination of a similar thought. He views the state of nature as a construct of savagery and war that contributes to insecurity. This distinction in insights shows the two scholars’ varying perspectives on human nature, which Rousseau saw as good, while Hobbes had a contrasting opinion. Hobbes’s problem of social order is fear since human beings preserve their lives for the premonition they hold against violence.
References
Kanatli, M. (2021). Private property, freedom and order. Routledge.
Lloyd, H. M. (2018). Sade’s Philosophical System in its Enlightenment Context. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mujiwati. Y. (2022). The concept of the state of nature on human morals in the viewpoint of state life. International Journal of Humanities Education and Social Sciences (IJHESS), 1(5).
Raylor, T. (2018). Rhetoric and leviathan. Philosophy, Rhetoric, and Thomas Hobbes. Oxford University Press.