-
A Critical Appraisal Of Hobbes’ Idea Of Social Contract
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 4]
Page 2 of 4
-
-
-
1.3 PLATO’S IDEA
Plato, in his Republic, and representing his
thoughts in Glaucon, noted that each man thought it good to inflict
injustice upon others and had to suffer injustice at the hands of
others. For him, all men behave in like manner. This means that it is in
the nature of man to inflict injustice upon the other. This is because
man sees injustice as something good and then works towards inflicting
injustice upon the other.
However, “in due course, men came to
consider the resulting state of affairs intolerable and proceeded to
agree to covenants and laws that obliged them to behave less
rapaciously.â€8 This is the view of Plato as represented by Glaucon in
the book II of Plato’s Republic. Going further, Plato noted that men
accept such laws because it is in their interest to do so. By the very
fact of the acceptance of the terms of that agreement, men have entered
into a social contract. Plato notes that this is the origin of justice,
which is merely what agreed-upon laws command. He further stressed
self-interest as the central motivating factor in political behaviour.
This invariably leads to the formation of a new society.
1.4 JOHN LOCKE’S IDEA
The
English Empiricist and moral and political philosopher, John Locke
(1632-1704), is renowned for his political thought and especially his
social contract theory. Locke’s “state of nature†was meant to be
harmonious and peaceful. Men are bound to preserve peace, mankind and
even avoid hurting the other. The well keeping and execution of the law
of nature is meant for every member of the society. The actual violation
of this law by the individual in the society leads to an eventual state
of war between the person and others. The power of a man against the
other is neither absolute nor arbitrary and must be proportionally
restrained. According to James Gordon Clapp, in the Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, “the state of nature was for Locke, a society of men, as
distinct from a state of government, or a political society.â€9 Before
his view, however, on the state of nature, Locke had analysed property
to be prior even to society. He then proceeded to derive society from
the consent of its members. According to George Sabine and Thomas
Thorson, Locke defined civil power as:
The right of making laws with
penalties … for the regulating and preserving of property, and of
employing force of community in the execution of such laws… all this
only for the public good.10
We must remark here, that such a power
would only be arrived at when there is consent, and though it may be
tacitly given, it must be the consent of each individual for himself.
This is a natural entitlement. It is the very fact of the existence of
certain inconveniences in a state of nature, such as men’s partiality
and inclination of some men to violate the rights of others.11 This is
Locke’s view of man in the state of nature. To escape these
‘inconveniencies’, Locke notes that men now consent to a civil
government. Thus, it is by common consent that men form a social
contract and create a single body politic. The aim of the contract “is
to preserve the lives, freedom and property of all, as they belong to
each under natural law.â€12 This is the basis of the state. The general
reason for its establishment is for the protection of the lives and
property of the individuals in the state.
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 4]
Page 2 of 4
-
