Minimum Of 1 Scholarly Source: Social Contract Introduction

Minimum Of 1 Scholarly Sourceintroductionsocial Contract Theorists S

Social contract theorists propose that morality consists of a set of rules that govern how individuals should treat one another, rules accepted by rational beings for mutual benefit, contingent upon others also following these rules. Hobbes, for instance, presents a logical reasoning that self-interest motivates humans to establish moral rules, especially in the context of a primitive 'State of Nature' devoid of morality, characterized by chaos and perpetual conflict. According to Hobbes, humans' natural state is 'nasty, brutish, and short,' driven by self-interest and a need for a peaceful social order. To maintain such order, moral rules are necessary, leading individuals to consent to them for mutual benefit (Hobbes, 1651). In contrast, Locke’s perspective emphasizes that the primary purpose of government is to preserve natural rights—life, liberty, and property. When a government fails to protect these rights, citizens possess the right—and sometimes the duty—to withdraw their support or rebel. Locke challenges Hobbes’s assertion that the state of nature is a state of war, instead describing it as a state where individuals can coexist peacefully without a central authority, provided there is some arbitrator to resolve disputes (Locke, 1689). Both perspectives have implications for understanding the authority and limits of government and individual rights, especially in questions related to the use of force and coercion.

Paper For Above instruction

In contemplating personal political philosophy, I find myself aligned more closely with Locke’s principles than Hobbes’s authoritarian view. I believe that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed and are fundamentally instituted to safeguard natural rights—life, liberty, and property. This perspective emphasizes that governmental authority should be limited and that individuals retain significant rights, including the right to rebel when governments violate their social contract.

Regarding the authority granted to governments, I support a system that allows for the lawful use of force only within strict boundaries, primarily for law enforcement, national defense, and the protection of citizens' rights. The death penalty, for example, is a contentious issue; I believe it should be reserved for the most severe crimes, such as heinous acts of terrorism or premeditated murder, and only when there are rigorous safeguards to prevent wrongful executions. The state's authority to use deadly force must be balanced with the fundamental right to life, which Locke upholds. Policies should ensure that such measures are necessary, proportionate, and executed with judicial oversight.

In terms of personal sacrifice for safety, I am willing to accept some limitations on individual freedoms—such as surveillance or increased security measures—provided they are proportionate, transparent, and subject to oversight. However, I would resist granting governments unchecked power, especially if such authority is abused or used to suppress dissent. I believe that a republican form of government with active civic engagement and accountability is essential in ensuring that authority remains legitimate and that individual rights are protected.

If I were to side with Hobbes, I would support the authority of the sovereign to maintain peace and order, even if that entails exceptional measures such as the suspension of certain rights or the use of force. However, I believe that a nuanced approach is necessary—recognizing that the social contract must include provisions for recourse if the government violates its obligations. Locke’s influence prompts me to advocate for mechanisms allowing citizens to challenge or dissolve a failed social contract, such as through democratic processes or judicial recourse. Thus, while I lean toward Locke’s philosophy, I acknowledge that a strong government, as envisioned by Hobbes, requires checks and balances to prevent tyranny and protect individual liberties (Rawls, 1971).

References

• Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Richard Cromwell: London.
• Locke, J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government. Awnsham Churchill.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Tuckness, A. (2019). Hobbes’s Political Philosophy. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-politics/
• Heywood, A. (2014). Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Cranston, M. (1995). John Locke: A Biography. Thames and Hudson.
• Klosko, G. (2005). The Development of Autonomy: A History of Liberal Political Theory. University of Chicago Press.
• Dworkin, R. (2011). Justice for Hedgehogs. Harvard University Press.
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.
• Beitz, C. (2009). The Idea of Human Rights. Oxford University Press.