llllllllllllllllllllll
|
The Architects and Their
Intended Design History of Social Contract Theory by Eli Arnold |
Good Message Boardsgood debates, philosophy, politics, economics, social issues
Libertarian-oriented. Proposals for freedom-lovers to all move to one state and try to "take it over." Philosophical arguments about how to pull this off and what should happen in the "free state" after they "take it over." Another minor political party. Maybe the best. Has a "Convention Floor" (message board) which lets participants shape the party's policies/platform proposals. Not necessarily conservative or liberal or moderate or ----. Just seeking the best positions on all the issues. (Note: This message board has had technical problems which hopefully will be (or are) fixed.) Perhaps a little flaky, this one. Kumbayah, sweetness and light, butterfly wings, etc. But open to all viewpoints. Proposes a new economic system without taxes or "usury". But you can disagree and offer your own theories. Mostly libertarian. Lots of topics, easy to get lost. PoliticalPlatform.net |
How does an ungoverned, but civilized, assembly of men determine how and if they shall be ruled? How do they decide who among them shall do the ruling? Who among them shall be the electors of this new system? How will they guarantee that this newly established government will always act in their best interest? These questions have
been pondered and written upon for millennia. From Plato who contemplated them in
the first century BCE (Before the Common Era) to John Rawls who wrote of these
eternal queries in the present, almost all philosophers, both minor and major,
modern and ancient, political and social, have made known their ideas on the
origin, ideal practices and ends of government. One major concept in the origin of government is the arrival at the agreement between the ruler and the ruled that establishes an understanding of each of the factions responsibilities in their respective jurisdictional system. This idea of the agreement between the sovereign and the populace on the terms of their arrangement is generally known by Jean Jacques Rousseau’s phrase as the social contract. But this idea had already been around thousands of years, ever since man has been forming utilitarian groupings, before the French thinker bestowed the current label. A basic example of this political concept can be understood through the unspoken pact between a child and his or her parents. Upon birth of the infant, the father and mother enter into a contract with their child that they will take care, teach and love him or her, but in return the child makes a similar vow to love, honor and take care of the parents in their old age (Roland). This simple, subliminal agreement is easily comparable to the political choice that all members of civilized society, inconsequential of the form of government they choose to be a part, subconsciously make. The concept has been around since man has been concerned with his self-preservation. Traced back to the Sophists, it was taught that societies exist by agreement rather than by nature, while the Stoics believed that there were two kinds of natural law, the good and the bad, from which the origin of government came. In ancient Greek literature, Plato, through the characters Socrates and Glaucon in Crito, one of his dialogues, elucidates on the concept of the best relationship between man and his government. The concept was discussed further during the Middle Ages. Italian Saint Thomas Aquinas, a great believer of natural law, wrote on concepts closely related to the social contract origins. The fourteenth century brought Italian philosophers Marsilius of Padua and English theorist William of Ockham. Both wrote of the relationship between the Church, later paralleled to the state, and the people. They possessed that the people of the congregation held the power during general conventions. In the sixteenth century, Spanish thinker Juan de Mariana supported the concept of the consent of the governed in the state, while his contemporary, the English Richard Hooker, held the same idea translated to the Church. Only by the agreement of those ruled could both the state and the Church be successful in administering their prospective flocks. Also, both believed that if the people became dissatisfied with the ruler, they could revoke the agreement granting ruling authority to the establishment. Contrary to this revocation power, Dutchman Hugo Grotius, seeing the contract as a historical event, did not allow for a revocation of power by the people over the administration. British thinker Thomas Hobbes, although agreeing with Grotius in denial of the nullification power of the people, saw that the citizens entered into the agreement to rid themselves of the dangerousness of the state of natural. Also in Hobbes’ newly instituted government, the best ruler to keep the contract was an absolute monarch. German philosopher Samuel von Pufendorf believed that the state of nature was not quite as perpetual as Grotius; at the same time, Pufendorf denied the warlike state of nature of Hobbes. Grotius’ thoughts were more of a balance between the ideas of the other two. Disagreeing with Hobbes in that a democracy, not an absolute monarchy, was the most profitable form of government, Dutch thinker Baruch Spinoza thought the shift from a state of nature to a government checked by a social contract directly related to wisdom. One of the most recognizable thinkers associated with the concept of the social contract is English philosopher John Locke. He wrote concerning the place of reason in the agreement. He also felt that the contract was, like a ordinary legal document, subject to revocation by either side upon one feeling that the other did not meet the expectations originally established. Jean Jacques Rousseau, the French originator of the phrase “social contract,” saw the contract as an agreement of protection in exchange for the relinquishment of certain rights by the people to the state. Also, Rousseau believed that man gained his humanity upon entrance into the agreement as a result of joining a society. Contrary to Grotius, German ideologist Immanuel Kant believed that the contract was not a historical concept; it was an important normative supporter of the rule of law. British-born American revolutionist Thomas Paine also wrote of the concept of the social contract. He felt that the contract was among the members of a society to live civilly under government and that the contract was not binding to future generations. They were forced to establish a similar understanding among themselves. Since the government of the people belongs to each person, American classical liberal and president Thomas Jefferson shared Paine’s views of the reestablishment of the contract among each generation. Jefferson also championed the Lockean ideal of consent of the governed. The eighteenth century saw the social contract philosophers overshadowed by the school of utilitarianism. Briefly, utilitarianism is the idea that what is good and moral for the greatest number of people is what is good and moral for the whole and what should be instated as the moral standard for all. Recurring in contemporary thought, the social contract theory continues to be debated today. In 1971, American modern-philosopher and Harvard professor John Rawls published A Theory of Justice dealing with the concept of the social contract, although in his work coined contractarianism. In it he described the contract as an imaginary agreement entailing the choice of a compact based on the decision of whether society would be better suited in an established government or in their original state of nature (“Social Contract Theory”). From the time the first Homo erectus made his appearance, and probably even before, man has been creating for himself compacts that make his life easier. Whether creating pacts with fellow hunters to stalk prey in groups, collectively hunting then dividing the kill among all participants or among farmers to join land planting, growing, reaping and enjoying the crops as a group, man always has been concerned with making the most out of the least amount of his time and energy. Most great philosophers, moral and political, have discussed this concept and its effect on human relations and the establishment of governments and societies. Although not named so, in The Republic, Plato discussed the social contract, formatting it in a dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon. Glaucon misanthropically argues that men will always act unjustly if given the chance, claiming that justice acts not as a moral or ethical concept but as the middle ground between “. . . the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retribution . . .” (Plato 46). Knowing both the sufferings and infliction of injustice, men establish a form of a social contract among themselves to maintain order and peace. Plato wrote, “And so when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both . . . they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just” (46). He claims that the nature of the social contract is actually a selfish agreement among men to serve their own needs above all others. According to Glaucon, justice is only tolerated as a lesser of the two evils “. . . honored by reason of the inability of men to do injustice” (Plato 46). He continues, stating that no man in his right mind would ever agree to such an agreement if it were not in his own personal best interest to take part in a contract. Extending what Glaucon believes about the social contract among men for commercial and legal reasons, one could theorize that he would also think the same about the similar contract between a government and its citizens. The government and the citizens both enter into the contract with their own rights in mind. The citizenry would believe that they have the greatest number of rights and privileges, limiting the government, while the government perceives the same thereby limiting those held by the people. Continuing with the theory, the final agreement would probably hold a near perfect balance of the rights of the state and the populace. The liberties of the people would be checked by the state while the liberties of the state would be checked by the people, both in order to achieve a perfect balance of powers. This state would not offer to its citizens a great amount of personal liberty since the people’s rights would not outweigh the freedom of the government; it would equal it. They also would not possess an advantage when petitioning for more rights and privileges. The supremacy of the people would not exist. But at the same time the supremacy of the government would not either. Plato, through the character Socrates, contradicts Glaucon’s skeptical idea of the contact. Socrates countered Glaucon’s cynical view of contractarianism with the idea that the purpose of the social contract was to fulfill the involved needs of those involved but in an unselfish way. According to Plato, man joins in the pact in order to make the lives of himself and those around him easier and more productive. Since no one is completely self-sufficient, man, in the ideal state, would join into commercial and legal agreements to satisfy all of his wants and needs. Through Socrates, Plato said, “Then, as we have many wants, and many persons are needed to supply them, one takes a helper for one purpose and another for another; and when these partners and helpers are gathered together in one habitation the body of inhabitants is termed a State” (60). Socrates continued, explaining that all participants would be happy in the knowledge that they would be joining the coalition for the good of themselves and, therefore, the good of the state. Whether he be a farmer, tailor, rhapsodist, poet, politician or any occupation that is required for a successful state, each member of the community would pursue only the trade for which he would be best suited. Although this idea seems almost communistic, one must remember that communism on paper appears to be the ideal governmental system. In Socrates’ ideal state, all would be taken care of and none would be left to want. Everyone in his or her niche would be efficient and directly contribute to the success of the state. The idea of the contract between the state and the people would be theoretically similar to the pact among the people. Conceptually, the state and the people would agree to terms similar to those established by the citizens among themselves. The state and the people would divulge rights and responsibilities proportionally to those who were best suited to exercise them productively. Some of the citizenry might be responsible for protection from foreign invaders. A tailor or poet would be useless in battle, but those citizens especially trained to be soldiers would be more useful than a state powered by those especially trained as politicians. Whereas tax collecting should be completed by those citizens who are best qualified for revenue collecting, the passing of laws should be left up to the state, through the elected representatives of the citizenry. Truly, Socrates’ ideal of the social contract seems to be that the people actually posses all of the control. Some of the control executed by the citizenry is only disguised by being sanctioned by the state. The contract appears to be the delegation of the rights of the people into two classes: civil and governmental. But the people truly have the whole of the rights and therefore responsibilities. To a much greater extent than Plato and probably the foremost of those philosophers that elucidated on the need for a social contract, British thinker and political theorist Thomas Hobbes published The Matter, Form and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil, more commonly knows as Leviathan, in 1651. It serves as the most complete work concerning the concept, paralleled only by Rousseau’s The Social Contract, published nearly two hundred years later. So, theoretically, Rousseau utilized Hobbes’ work as a base from which to launch his own ideas on the concept. A Leviathan, according to the Hebrew Old Testament, is an ancient dragon or sea monster defeated by Yahweh at the beginning creation. Also prevalent in ancient Canaanite mythology, this monster was chosen by Hobbes as the title of his great political work because, as described in the Biblical book of Job, the Leviathan is the ruler over the children of pride (Fieser, “Hobbes and the Social Contract”). Though it would seem more proper in the introduction, Hobbes wrote in Chapter XXVIII: . . . I have set forth the nature of man, whose pride and other passions have compelled him to submit himself to government; together with the great power of him governor, whom I compared to LEVIATHAN, taking that comparison [from Job 41:33-34]: . . “There is nothing,” saith he, “on earth to be compared with him. He is made so as not to be afraid. He seeth every high thing below him; and is king of all the children of pride. . . ” (148) Hobbes saw that the need for a social contract sprang forth from the inbred characteristic of man to be selfish and self-serving. But Hobbes did not reprimand man for this trait; he looked upon it simply as a tolerable idiosyncrasy that man was powerless to alter. The whole concept of the social contract grew out of man’s selfishness and brutality towards each other. In this “state of nature,” as Hobbes described it, all men were physically and intellectually equal. But since all men were equal, there was no one superior who could take charge (Fieser, “Hobbes and the Social Contract”). In this state of nature, Hobbes expanded on three factors that induced conflict among men: competition, diffidence and glory. He wrote, “The first maketh [sic] men invade for gain; the second, for safety and the third, for reputation” (Hobbes 85). The first factor can be viewed as the human competition for the basic necessities of food, shelter and clothing. As there is a limited supply of each, man is forced to take on a selfish inclination when searching for these essentials for his own survival. Once man has ensured his survival, he is immediately on the lookout for those others that have not yet found their needed materials. This is the spirit of the second factor. He is forced to protect his findings from other men. He automatically becomes suspicious of everyone around him for fear that they will steal his supplies. From this ever-present distrust of fellow men springs the third and final factor leading to human conflicts, violence. Being suspicious of everyone all of the time leads man to become violent toward those whom he suspects of stealing or even thinking about stealing his possessions. Each man feels that he must maintain a level of fear in his fellow man, who does not have his basic necessities. This means that he will be seeking glory through force against his fellow man, leading to his renewed reputation. It is a selfish, sad world that Hobbes proposed, the result being war (Fieser, “Hobbes and the Social Contract”). As can be expected from a view of human temperament that is ultimately guaranteed to end in war, Hobbes believed that morality had no place in the state of nature. To him, it is from this lack of morality and desire for peace that the social contract initially becomes needed. Concerning the role of morality in nature, Hobbes wrote, “The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have . . . no place” (86). Without a set moral code forced upon man by a social contract, there is ethical chaos. Even with a mandated moral code man is still fearful of other’s selfishness. James Fieser wrote, “When we go on trips we take guns with us for protection against robbers. When we go to bed at night we lock our cabinets to keep our housekeepers and even our children from stealing from us. And we do this even with the protection of the police and court systems.” He goes on to discuss that countries rich in natural resources hold an ever-present fear of war from border countries concerning control of their precious commodities. Seeing that this world would not be the best in which to live, Hobbes describes only one way in which to overcome this situation: achieve peace (Fieser, “Hobbes and the Social Contract”). Basing much on Dutch father of international law, Hugo Grotius, Hobbes explicated fifteen laws of nature that described the end of discord among men along with the acquisition of peace (Fieser, “Hobbes and the Social Contract”). Although some of them seem to contradict the essence of peace, these precepts are the base on which the social contract is founded since they eventually lead to social and legal harmony among men. In Chapter XIV of Leviathan, Hobbes described the first and second laws of nature. Concerning the first law, he wrote, “. . . every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war” (86). Therefore man should always aim for peace, but when it becomes evident that peace is not achievable, he may use the art of war defending his own interests. The second law, more geared toward ending the kill-or-be-killed stigma, shows the need for a social contract among men. Fieser gives an easily understood analogy of the second law; he wrote: Imagine that each of us carried around a bag with slips of paper that listed all of our respective rights in the state of nature. The rights that I have in the state of nature are almost infinite in number and allow me complete liberty. For example, I might pull one slip out of my bag that says I have a right to hop around on one foot. I might pull another slip out that says I have the right to kill you. The second of these rights surely worries you. However, in your rights bag, you have a similar slip of paper that says that you have the right to kill me, and that worries me. As long as we both hold onto our rights to kill each other, we can never achieve peace. The second law of nature says that you and I should agree to give up those specific rights that threaten each of us respectively. (Fieser “Hobbes and the Social Contract”) This second edict reflects a Golden Rule type philosophy; in order to protect himself against his neighbor, man must enter into right-restricting agreements, or contracts, with his neighbor. His, along with his neighbor’s rights, are being protected equally without war. The only problem is that they both must agree to participate. But, since it is in the best interest of both parties, they will. Also, Hobbes believed that man should only give up those rights necessary to his survival. Any actions of individual men that are not directly reflective of the survival of the whole should not be relinquished to the body politic. Most relevant to the concept of the social contract, the third law as defined by Hobbes is “. . . that men perform their covenants made . . .” (Hobbes 91). If those partaking in the contract do not keep the agreement, the contract is worthless, or “empty words” as Hobbes said. But since there will always be doubt on both sides concerning the compliance of the other party, more rights are relinquished to a political entity (Fieser, “Hobbes and the Social Contract”). This government body will assure obedience under the agreement. Here, Hobbes thought the need and establishment of a social contract required the creation of a ruling body of some sort. Therefore, to Hobbes the origin of government seemed to be the selfish and brutality that man bred in his natural state. The social contract among men is for the sole reason to preserve as many personal liberties of the individual man. It is to protect each man’s rights from infringement by others. The rights relinquished to the governing body to ensure compliance of all men is diminutive when compared with the gain that each man receives by now being free from fear of others unlawfulness. Contrary to Hobbes pessimistic origin of the social contract, French philosopher, musician, botanist and probably most influential writer of the Age of Enlightenment, Jean Jacques Rousseau held a view that was more encouraging to the nature of men. Rousseau believed that in the natural state, man was not truly free. Freedom was not an individually gained concept but one achieved when incorporated into a political state. Since in nature, man was at constant threat, as Hobbes explained in his Leviathan, he was not free. Only when a state is established protecting his rights through a social contract, does he achieve freedom (Eliasmith). Jean Jacques Rousseau’s 1762 self labeled “little treatise” The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right had perhaps the greatest effect on the political concept of the social contract than any other work in philosophical history. Not only did it name the idea of contractarianism, it served as the single greatest contribution to the study of political science by any philosopher during any period. Written at a time when many monarchs in Europe were claiming authoritative powers by the endowment of God bestowed upon them as a sign of a “divine right,” The Social Contract put forth Rousseau’s questions of how to remain part of the body politic, which was becoming more and more oppressive, keeping those protections endowed therein while retaining as much of his personal liberties and freedoms as was possible (Eliasmith). Rousseau expanded on a difference that other political philosophers who wrote on the social contract did not discuss: the difference of the social contract between a government and an individual and the contract between a government and the society as a whole. Whereas, if one individual signs a contract with someone then deciding to dishonor that agreement, he or she can and will suffer the consequences, but in a society, if one member becomes dissatisfied with the agreement, the whole agreement does not become voided. Likewise, the no longer happy individual may leave the society without any governmentally sanctioned consequences. Those that desire to remain a part of the society, do so, thereby affirming the contract further (Eliasmith). Probably the most recognizable line from political philosophy “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains,” showed Rousseau’s belief that all men entered the world with the same amount of freedom as all other men (387). All were equal in birth. It was only by the influences and restraints of society man became a slave to the idiosyncrasies of the world (Bewaji). Like Hobbes, Rousseau believed that the individual must transfer some of his right to the body politic in order to partake in the benefits of the social contract. One of these liberties Rousseau would not have approved of the transfer of is the power to make laws and to legislate (Eliasmith). He believed that in the state there were three wills at work: the general will, the private will and the will of all. Only the general will is in a position to achieve for man the common good. Contrary to this, most people followed their own private wills, thereby overpowering any chance of common good for the body politic. Following this thought, a legislature that is composed of men, each following his own private will, will not achieve the common good for the whole society. The individual should join together with other individuals but remain free at all times (Edwards). Rousseau wrote that as a part of the social contract, man is “to find a form of association able to defend and protect, with the whole common force, the person and goods of every associate, and of such a nature that each, uniting himself with all, may still obey only himself, and remain as free as before” (391). Only through the express consent of the whole society can the laws and decrees of the established government operate correctly (Bronowski 297). Although different in practice but based on the same general idea that man needed to exit from the state of nature, Rousseau’s concept of the origin of the social contract did not differ greatly from the other philosophers. The main variance came in Rousseau’s perception that citizens “. . . remained sovereign throughout the development of their society and, in fact, had to exercise their own rule” (Bronowski 297). In short, man commanded; he was the architect and could be the butcher of the agreement. He designed, he instituted and he can nullify. British statesman and theorist John Locke authored his Second Treatise on Civil Government in 1690. Detailing the ideas on the origin of government and the place of natural law in this founding, Locke believed, like Rousseau, that ultimately man was supreme. The Second Treatise on Civil Government, more than any other document, had perhaps the greatest single effect on the American founders’ philosophy. Also included in this monumental work of political thought, the groundwork for his ideas on the concept of the social contract was established. Locke based all of his ideas concerning government, and therefore the social contract, on the concept of natural law. He felt that the natural rights, based on natural law, were from God and indefinable by men in a civil society. Locke wrote, “. . . The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions . . .” (26). Locke felt that this law ruled the natural world. Opposing Hobbes, Locke believed that in this natural state of man goodness and morality flourished. Conflict between men only appeared when one man infringed upon the natural rights of another, namely, restricting his life, liberty, property, possessions, etc. Also, Locke believed that man had the right, natural right, to defend himself from another trying to remove these rights from him (“John Locke Pros and Cons”). To Locke, government existed for the purpose of protecting the natural rights of man more efficiently than men could themselves. Therefore, the state of government is simply an extension of the state of nature, thus theoretically checked by the same rules. Interestingly, Locke used the idea of revocation of the established government when it infringes upon the natural rights of the citizens to justify revolt against King James II of Great Britain in 1688. Another reason for the establishment of a social contract along with the formation of a government is evident in the impartiality of man in the state of nature. There, man is not expected to be impartial; he looks-out mainly for his own natural rights. Also, there are as many different variation to the exact list of natural rights as there are men who posses them. In an established government, there are impartial authorities who would not harbor bias towards others’ natural rights (Edwards). As part of the social contract and the establishment of a governing authority, the members of the society must relinquish the power they have individually to the community as a whole. This power would then be entrusted to a government. Even though power transfer is required, the people still retain the power. The government now is an agency of the people, charged with protecting their rights, nothing more (Edwards). In Western Intellectual Tradition, authors J. Bronowski and Bruce Mazlish wrote, “They leave the state of nature, band together in commonwealths, and appoint a government to act as a common judge over them and to protect their rights of life, liberty, and property. Thus government is freely created by the people to protect their already existing rights. It derives its power from the ‘consent of the governed’” (213). Locke believed that the social contract continued unaltered throughout generations. He thought that each new age renewed the contract when they became of legal age. By not moving to a new society that better suited their needs and wants, the next generation approved the agreement. So therefore by living and flourishing in a society, man places his consent upon the agreement under which the government functions (Eliasmith). As Locke believed the true purpose of government to be the protection of the natural rights of man, he also believed the sole function of government was not “. . . to impose laws on the people but to discover what the laws of nature are . . . The government, in Locke’s view, ought to be (as it were) a research establishment run by political scientists, whose business it is to discover what these laws are and how to govern accordingly” (Bronowski 213). According to Locke, the government should not legislate for the reason of limiting one’s natural rights, but only for the purpose of protecting them. Abbreviated, Locke believed that the state of nature was a generally peaceful state where man enjoyed his natural rights, namely life, liberty, property. Governments were instituted among the members of societies based upon a social contract agreed to by the people and the state. This was created to be a system to show impartiality in the prevention of violations of the natural law (Fieser, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The social contract is a philosophy that remains a discussed topic in the present among political philosophers. Although not gaining as great a following as Locke or Rousseau in their day, the contemporary political philosophers like Harvard professor John Rawls still write upon political ideas, among these the continued state of the social contract. His 1971 book A Theory of Justice, widely read among intellects, mainly discussed the nature of justice. Opposing a utilitarian view of justice where the morally best for the majority becomes what is moral for the whole, Rawls saw the social contract as the hypothetical agreement between the members of a society and a governing body. Choosing the principles of the contract, the people do not rely upon a utilitarian system; they have an inner voice of morality and right way of life (“John Rawls: Philosophy”). Each man following this, the contract is agreed upon without much conflict. Those that do not share the same basis for morality are not excluded from the right of joining a society, only allowed to establish one of their own with those that share in their views. Professor Rawls is not the only modern thinker to create a discourse on the social contract. Every day with many issues, Americans are challenging the idea of the social contract whether they are aware of their skepticism or not. In fact, debating the constitutionality of anything is in essence debating the status of the social contract. If one wonders if the government is sanctioned by the people to act in a certain instance or asks oneself if the government has authority to conduct itself in a specific manner, one is questioning the terms of the social contract. All actions of the federal, state and local governments are checked by the American social contract. Nothing that they do may conflict with it, nothing. If one feels that something is in contradiction, he or she has the power to solve it. He or she may call for redress or, if he or she feels strong enough, even sue. There have been countless court cases in American history exhibiting the “United States” as named defendant. People are not alone in calling for restitution from the government. Ever since the founding of the country there have been groups that see that the state does not supersede its defined rights. From the Federalists in independent America to the National Rifle Association to the American Civil Liberties Union to the Libertarian political party, there are countless entities working to ensure the government does not forget or supersede its role under the social contract. |
Oh Hell! Get
the Truth FAST
|
|
ignore this space |