According to Locke, the state of nature, the natural state of humanity, is a state of perfect and complete freedom to live one`s life as it sees fit, free from the interference of others. However, this does not mean that it is a license state: you are not free to do whatever you want, or even anything you think is in your interest. The state of nature, although it is a state in which there is no civil authority or government to punish people for violating the laws, is not a state without morality. The state of nature is pre-political, but it is not pre-moral. It is assumed that people in such a state are equal to each other and therefore also capable of discovering and being bound by the law of nature. The law of nature, which Locke believes is the basis of all morality and has been given to us by God, requires that we do not harm others with regard to their « life, health, liberty, or possessions » (para. 6). Because we all belong equally to God and because we cannot take away what rightfully belongs to Him, we are forbidden to harm each other. Thus, the natural state is a state of freedom in which people are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference, and because of the natural law and the restrictions it imposes on people, it is relatively peaceful. Rousseau has two different theories of the social contract.
The first is found in his essay Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, commonly known as the Second Discourse, and is a report on the moral and political development of man over time, from a state of nature to modern society. As such, it contains his naturalized representation of the social contract, which he considers highly problematic. The second is his normative or idealized theory of the social contract and aims to provide the means to mitigate the problems that modern society has created for us, as set forth in the social contract. After the introduction of private property, the initial conditions of inequality became more pronounced. Some have property and others are forced to work for them, and the development of social classes begins. Finally, those who have property note that it would be in their interest to create a government that protects private property from those who do not have it but can see that they can acquire it by force. Thus, the government is established by a treaty that claims to guarantee equality and protection for all, even if its real purpose is to petrify the very inequalities that private property has produced. In other words, the treaty that claims to be equal in the interest of all is really in the interest of a few who have become stronger and richer through the development of private property. It is the naturalized social contract that Rousseau blames for the conflict and competition that modern society suffers. In the early days of the cosmic cycle, humanity lived on an immaterial level, dancing to the tunes in a kind of fairytale land where there was no need for food or clothing and no private property, family, government or laws.
Then, little by little, the process of cosmic disintegration began its work, and humanity became earthly and felt the need for food and shelter. When people lost their original glory, class differences appeared, and they made agreements with each other and accepted the institution of private property and family. With this robbery began murder, adultery and other crimes, and so people met and decided to appoint a man from their background to maintain order, in exchange for some of the products from their fields and herds. He was called « the Great Chosen One » (Mahasammata) and received the title of Raja because he pleased the people. [9] To avoid such a life, people were banished together and political communities were formed in which they worked together to act in mutually beneficial ways and create security and order. Modern views on the theory of social contracts equate them with our moral and political life. According to this argument, morality, politics, society and everything that accompanies it, everything Hobbes calls the « generous life, » is purely conventional. Before the establishment of the basic social contract, according to which people agree to live together, and the contract to embody a sovereign with absolute authority, nothing is immoral or unjust – everything is allowed.
However, once these contracts are concluded, the company becomes possible and it can be expected that people will keep their promises, cooperate with each other, etc. The social contract is the most fundamental source of all that is good and on which we depend to live well. Our choice is either to stick to the terms of the contract or to return to the state of nature that no reasonable person would prefer according to Hobbes. Q. How can social contract theory support lawsuits in moral dilemmas? As an example of social contract theory in practice, ask yourself if William accuses Adam of stealing $1,000 from him. .
Commentaires récents