Philosophy of law
Our broken social contract
An analysis of social contract theory of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in the present world.
Manuraje karwasra
[email protected]
The social contract:
Thomas Hobbes wrote about The Social Contract for the first time. According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the State of Nature was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", a state in which self-interest, the absence of rights and contracts prevented the 'social', or the concept of society. Life was 'anarchic'. Individuals in the state of nature were not political and were anti social. He assumed human nature to be full of evil.
The social contract was an 'occurrence' during which individuals came together and surrendered some of their individual rights so that others would surrender theirs (e.g. person A gives up his/her right to kill person B if person B does the same). This resulted in the establishment of a sovereign entity, a state, which would create laws to regulate social interactions. Individuals will now be under its rule and will act accordingly. Human life was thus no longer "a war of all against all". They surrendered all of their rights like liberty, right to private property and freedom of speech and expression to a single sovereign power while reserving their right to life. The role of the state was to make laws for proper functioning of the society and to safeguard human lives. For Hobbes, protection of life from the evil human nature was the biggest role of the state in his social contract theory. If the state fails to do this task, the people have absolute right to overthrow such system of government and form a new one. He was not very concerned about the liberties of a human being. He gave importance to a breathing human body.
John Locke's conception of the social contract differed from Hobbes' in several fundamental ways, retaining only the central notion that persons in a state of nature would willingly come together, give up their rights and form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature would be bound morally, by The Law of Nature, not to harm each other in their lives or possession, but without government to defend them against those seeking to injure or enslave them, people would have no security in their rights and would live in fear. Locke argued that individuals would agree to form a state that would provide a "neutral judge", acting to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it. Locke assumed human nature to be filled with starvation for peace. In his theory humans were living happily, no one would like to harm anyone else. People willingly agreed to form a state just to reduce the chances of conflicts. The role of the government formed thereinafter was to solve conflicts arising out between individuals and to secure their rights. Locke talked about a more liberal kind of government. As for him humans were peace loving social animals, so there was no need of a very strong government and strict rules. For Locke rights such as right to freedom of speech and expression, personal liberty, right to own private property were very important. Hobbes argued about the importance of human life and said that if such rights will be given to humans it will lead to a threat to security of life for people themselves. Thus, Hobbes argued for near-absolute authority, Locke argued for inviolate freedom under law in his Second Treatise of Government. Locke argued that government's legitimacy comes from the citizens' delegation to the government of their right of self-defense (of "self-preservation"). The government thus acts as an impartial, objective agent of that right of self-defense, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executioner—the condition in the state of nature. In this view, government derives its "just powers from the consent [i.e, delegation] of the governed."
Analysis
In present world, where a lot of atrocities to human lives are happening, where, neither the life nor the rights are secure; the human nature stands evil and the law, paralyzed. This makes Hobbes' stand on human nature to be justified. But where did we go wrong? Laws seem to be made in such a way that we assumed human nature to be evil and at the same time we gifted humans with a lot of rights. But the formed structure of the government promised to secure all these rights and provide justice too. But looking at the rate of crimes happening across the globe and the failure of these law enforcing and rights protecting authorities, does the contract still stands? Is it still legit for public to surrender their rights in spite of the basic terms of the contract not being fulfilled? Our social contract faces harms everyday when any crime against the rights promised to us happens. Why should people still follow the laws and rules made by their sovereign then? When people surrender their rights to state, they do it for a greater good, and for their own security, laws like Armed Forces Special Powers Act and Anti Terrorism Act take away a lot of their rights, which are guaranteed under their constitution itself, and they give away those rights for eliminating the threats to their lives. And when any person loses his or her life the contract gets broken. Major aim of the present day legal system is to provide security to the citizens and to safeguard their rights. Do the social contract, and the state stand? The answer can't be a positive one in the present day scenario.
[Type the document title]
[Type the document subtitle]
