TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE … … ... … … ii
CERTIFICATION … … … … …
iii
DEDICATION … … … … …
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.. … … … … v
TABLE OF CONTENTS… … … … … vii
GENERAL INTRODUCTION … … … … xi
i.
Statement
of the problem … … xvi
ii.
Purpose of
Study … … … … xvii
iii.
Scope of
Study … … … …
xviii
iv.
Division of
Work … … … … xviii
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL IDEA OF A SOCIAL CONTRACT
1.1 MAJOR
PROPONENTS OF THE IDEA … … …3
1.2
Socrates’
Argument … … … …4
1.3
Plato’s
Idea … … … … … …5
1.4
John Locke. … … … … … …6
1.5 Social Contract According to Jean Jacques Rousseau 8
CHAPTER TWO
PRECEDENCE TO
THE CONTRACT
2.1 Hobbes’ State of Nature… … … … …12
2.2 The Bases of the State of Nature … … …14
2.3 The Inevitable Implications … … …16
2.3.1 Survival of the Fittest … … … …17
CHAPTER THREE
THE IDEA OF
SOCIAL CONTRACT
3.1
Hobbes’
Idea of Social Contract … … …20
3.2
Establishing
Sovereign Authority … …23
3.3
The rights
of the Sovereign … … … …25
3.4
Absolutism … … … … …27
3.5
The Limits
of Political Obligation … …28
3.6
The Liberty
of the Subjects. … … …29
CHAPTER FOUR
A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF HOBBES’ IDEA OF
SOCIAL CONTRACT
4.1 The Necessity of A Contract … … …35
4.1.1 As a Necessary Base of a Society … … …37
4.1.2 Harmonization of Individual Differences …39
4.1.3 Avoidance of the “State of War” … … …40
4.2 Contributions to Democratic Theory … …42
4.3.0 Negative Implications … … …44
4.3.1 As the Anchor for Authoritarianism … …45
4.3.2 The Contract as a Fictitious Bond … …48
4.3.3 Indifference to State Administration … …50
4.3.4 Resistance: A Reversal to the State of Nature …51
CHAPTER FIVE
CRITICAL EVALUATION AND
CONCLUSION
5.1 Critical Evaluation … … … … ...54
5.2 Conclusion … … … … …61
BIBLIOGRAPHY … … … … … …63
PROPOSAL
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Hobbes’ political philosophy came at a point in time
when vast changes in the intellectual outlook of Europe, in Philosophy and in
science, demanded equally drastic changes. More than a Century before the
beginning of the English civil wars, Machiavelli had stated with brutal
clearness, the fact that European politics rested, in the main, on force and
selfishness, either national or individual, but he had supplied little
interpretation of the fact.
Nonetheless, towing an historical lane, some fifty years after Machiavelli,
Bodin, writing in the midst of the French wars of religion, had stressed that
the outstanding characteristic or attribute of a state is the need to have a
sovereign power to legislate. It is noteworthy to observe that all these
strains of European thoughts met and crossed in the political philosophy of
Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes’ political writings were occasioned by the civil wars of
his time. They were designed to support absolute government, which Hobbes
simply implies for absolute monarchy. How then did Hobbes settle for the idea
of absolute sovereign? This notion was remarkably arrived at through his idea
of social contract; a typical analysis of the evolution of the state. And what
strikes one first about Hobbes’ theory of state is that he approaches the
subject not from an historical point of view, but from the vantage point of
logic and analysis. Commenting on this, S.E. Stumpf observes that Hobbes did
not ask, “When did civil societies emerge? But asks rather, ‘how do you explain
the emergence of society?’ He is concerned to discover the cause of civil
society”. To provide an answer to this, Hobbes
gave a rational approach to it. This he did by positing the idea of a social
contract. Before Hobbes, several philosophers had put forward such similar
theory. Socrates had noted that no one forces the other to belong to a society.
The laws are made, which govern the citizen. When a person reaches the age of
reason, he can then decide whether or not to stay in such environment. To stay
means to abide by the set rules. This is the agreement or put more
scientifically, the social contract. Plato, on the other hand, gave a
preceeding version of natural inclination of man before the contract. Man, for
him, acted ‘beast’ unto the other till they thought it wise to agree to live
together and in peace. The major philosophers of modern social contract school
however include: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Rousseau. We shall later see
their views briefly before dwelling extensively on Hobbes idea on social contract.
Willmore Kendall wrote that it is either that all the above named three were
pupils of Niccolo Machiavelli or that they wrote as if he influenced them.
All
three, if not avowed pupils of Niccolo Machiavelli, at least wrote as if they
had been influenced profoundly by Machiavelli.
On the other hand, Hobbesian contract marked a turning
point and in some respects, a genuine innovation in the history of political
philosophy. Hobbes began his
analysis of his idea of social contract by giving out the condition of man in
the state of nature, as a state of ‘war of all against all’. A condition where
man becomes beast unto the others. This is
brought about by human desire for what is good. This sort of condition would be
fraught with conflict and danger. In order to escape these inconveniences and
unwarranted and uncalled-for state of affairs, people would agree to give up
some of their freedom through a contract that instituted a government. This
government, they all consent willingly to obey. This is why Ernst Cassier, in
his book, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment, asserts, “rule and
submission are the only forces which can transform politically into one body,
that which by nature is divided and which can keep this body in existence.” By this justification, it is implied
that, it is by instituting the sovereign authority through the mutual contract,
would a peaceful society be arrived at. Nay, Thomas Hobbes is an example of a philosopher
who preferred the evils of absolute power to the evils of life in a society
that did not have such authority. We can
rightly say here that Hobbes was negligent of the implications of enthroning
the sovereign as an absolute authority. Hobbes was more distracted and
disturbed by the seeming disorderliness of a society without the rulership of
an absolute sovereign. He was afraid of a chaotic society. It is against this
background that R. Popkin and A. Stroll noted that, “it is understandable that
what Hobbes feared most of all was a chaotic society.”
Such type of society exists where there is no absolute sovereign. Also, in such
a society, no one’s life or property could be safe. The only way to assure
domestic tranquility lay in compelling people to obey the laws of the society.
Morestill, punishment is pronounced on defaulters. All these and more are what
we shall critically examine in detailed expose of Hobbes idea of Social
Contract.
A SHORT BIOGRAPHY OF THOMAS HOBBES
The 17th Century English Philosopher,
Thomas Hobbes, was born at Westport, near Malmesbury, on the 5th of
April 1588 in England. He was the son of an eccentric vicar. His education at
Oxford stirred in him a fascination for classical literature, whereas his
exposure to Aristotelian logic left him bored. In 1608, after leaving Oxford,
he had the privilege of becoming the tutor of the Earl of Devonchire, William
Cavendish. This association with the Cavendish family had a great influence on
him, because he had a great opportunity to travel wide. In Italy, he met
Galileo and in Paris, formed a lasting friendship with Descartes in person.
However, his carefully reasoned objections to the meditations indicate Hobbes’
close familiarity with Descartes’ philosophy. Nonetheless, historians have
pointed out that for all his labours, Hobbes was never able to acquire that
degree of mathematical knowledge and insight, which Descartes had attained at a
far earlier age. This not withstanding,
we can see the influence of geometry as manifest in his ideal of scientific
method. In England, Hobbes was much admired by Bacon, who, as Lord Chancellor,
enjoyed conversation with him and frequently dictated his thoughts to Hobbes.
Hobbes’ early interest in classics led him to translate ‘Thucydides’, but his
discovery of Euclid’s Elements in his early 40s, shifted his interest to
mathematics and analysis. The central point of Hobbes’ political writing is
encapsulated in his famous work – “The Leviathan”. This is our chief source in this our academic
expose.
i. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In the human society, we find man enshrouded with envy, unbefitting
competition, arrogance of power, egoistic desires and numerous other social
vices. These are all unsocial inclinations of man, which end up involving man
in continual clash of interests or even war. Against this backdrop, Hobbes
began his political philosophy by his analysis of a pre-political state of
nature. In a summary form, he acclaims that in the state of nature, man is a
beast unto the other. Now, to avoid this condition, Hobbes propounded his
famous idea of a social contract; the agreement by individual to submit their
wills to a sovereign. How plausible is this idea of social contract in
establishing the demanded or expected quiet? In trying to give a sound solution
to the condition of man in the state of nature, Hobbes enthroned the absolute
sovereign as the best alternative. However, this seemingly attractive solution
has its attendant problems, especially when we consider residing absolute power
on a sovereign. In the end the idea of social contract appears not to be the
salvaging power since Hobbes gave room for revolution against the sovereign.
This makes the individual to return to the much-dreaded state of nature.
ii. PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this project is to see how Hobbes came about his idea of
social contract, to explore the intricacies, which are remarkable in his idea
of social contract to view critically the pros and cons. It also seeks to find
the extent to which Hobbes had used this theory to ratify the “war of all
against all,” simply put, the state of nature.
iii. SCOPE OF STUDY
Despite Hobbes’s approach at other philosophical areas, we are more
interested in his political philosophy. In it, we shall dwell mainly on his
idea of social contract, after establishing what led to the contract.
iv. DIVISION OF WORK
This work is divided into five chapters. The introduction gives us the
inkling of what we shall dwell on in details in the main work. Chapter one
exposes some philosophers’ notion about social contract, after giving a general
definition of what social contract is all about. The second Chapter deals with
what Hobbes considers as the nature of man in the state of nature. Chapter
three gives out the position of Hobbes on social contract while chapter four,
on the other hand, critically deals with the critical judgement of Hobbes’ idea
of social contract. The essay is then concluded with a critical evaluation and
conclusion.
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL IDEA
OF A SOCIAL CONTRACT
The social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the
view that person’s moral or political obligations are dependent upon a contract
or agreement between them to form a society.
On the mention of the term contract, then, what comes to mind immediately is
agreement. The New Webster Dictionary of the English Language defined the term
‘contract’ as “an agreement or a covenant”.
On the other hand, Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines social contract as a
basis for legitimate legal and political power in the idea of a contract.
Contracts are things that create obligation.”
Hence, if we can view society as organized, i.e., a situation where a contract
had been formed between the citizen and the sovereign power, this would
necessarily ground the obligation of each to the other. The idea is one of a
contract between citizens as a result of which power is vested in government.
Traditionally, the term has been used in arguments that attempt to explain the
nature of political obligation and or the kind of responsibility that rulers
have to their subjects.
Philosophers such as Plato, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Kant, had a varied but
similar positions that life in a prepolitical “state of nature” would be very difficult
such that it would lead them to agree either with one another or with a
prospective ruler, which eventually leads to the creation of political
institutions. Such individuals believe that such a creation would necessarily
improve their lot.
Despite the fact that many of the social contract theorists admit that
there is almost never an explicit act of agreement in a community; however,
they maintain that such an agreement is implicitly made when members of the
society engage in certain acts through which they give their explicit consent
to the ruling regime. Now, how do we definitely understand the terms of a
social contract, which establishes a state? Are we to judge it as when the
people agree to obey the ruler? Do they surrender their power to him as Hobbes
would have us believe? Or do they lend him that power, reserving the right to
take it from him, if and when they see fit, as Locke maintained? What really
are the terms of a social contract posited by its theorists? It is worthy of
note to state that amidst controversies surrounding their interpretation:
Social contract arguments have been important to the development of
modern democratic states: the idea of the government as the creation of the
people, which they have right to overthrow, if they find it wanting,
contributed to the development of democratic forms of polity in the 18th
and 19th Centuries.
In this chapter, we shall critically, but in a lighter form, expose the
idea of some major theorists on social contract, excluding Hobbes who we shall,
later in this work, critically examine his detailed approach on the idea.
1.1 MAJOR PROPONENTS OF THE
IDEA
The idea of a social contract could be traced back to the time of
Socrates. Plato and Aristotle, on the other hand, represented their individual
views on a social contract. However, these views came to be modified and
moreso, the Hobbessian contract marked a turning point in some respect, a
genuine innovation in history of political philosophy. Let us now briefly run
through the ideas of some major proponents of a social contract.
1.2 SOCRATES’ ARGUMENT
Socrates here was so much indebted to the laws of Athens. He personified
these laws and appreciated so much the privilege, which the law granted him,
especially for his existence. For him, it was the law that made his father and
mother to marry each other and beget him. It is believed that there is no force
or coercion between the laws and the citizens. One willingly chooses to be part
and parcel of the city, thereby accepting the codes of the laws. The citizens
on growing and “once they see how the city conducts itself, can choose whether
to leave, taking their property with them, or stay.” According to Socrates, “staying implies
an agreement to abide by the laws and accept the punishment that they met out.” Herein lies the terms of the contract.
For one to stay in such a society means that the individual accepts the terms
laid down by the laws. This invariably hooks the person in a mutual contract
with the state and the ruling authorities. The contract described by Socrates
is an implicit one. It is implied by his choice to stay in Athens, even though
he is free to leave.
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.” 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.” 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.
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. 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.” 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.
1.5 THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
ACCORDING TO JEAN JACQUES
ROUSSEAU:
Rousseau (1712-1778) developed increasingly deeper and more
sophisticated ideas about the origin and nature of the condition of man in the
society and what ought to be done to ameliorate this condition. Rousseau
regrettably announced that increasing scientific knowledge and refinement of
arts and letters, instead of leading to a peaceful and harmonious society, was
in fact, the bane of the civilized society. He notes that such sophistication
is the offshoot of luxury and idleness and has developed to feed people’s
vanity and desire for ostentatious and aggressive self-display. N. J. Dent, in
his commentary on Rousseau remarks that:
Rousseau allows for
the fact that there are a few people of genius who genuinely enrich humanity by
their ideas. But the majority are not improved but harmed, by exposure to the
higher learning.
In his work, “Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality”,
Rousseau gives an account of the fall of humankind. For him, natural man, left
alone in his natural environment is self-sufficient. In this state, man is
peaceable. Later on, increase in population forces people to live together.
Jealousy and envy became the order of the day as “men come to demand esteem and
deference.” This leads men to
compete for precedence, which makes life to be tainted by aggression and spite.
Lack of individual self-sufficiency, Rousseau argues, requires the
individual to associate together in the society. He however does not support a
condition of enslavement as the price of survival for those who embark on this
contract. Freedom is seen as an essential human need and the mark of humanity.
Rousseau holds that freedom and association can only be combined if all the
persons of the association make up the sovereign body for that association. In
other words, in this contract, there ought to be a mutual consent, freedom and
choice made by the individuals as they submit their general will to be ruled by
an established authority. Rousseau, however, made it clear that the terms of
the contract holds that governmental function must be thoroughly subordinate to
the sovereign judgement of the people. Generally, Rousseau’s idea of social
contract depicts the union of free and equal men who devise laws under which
they shall now proceed to live their lives as citizens of a state.
This now brings us to where our beam light heads: Hobbes’ idea of social
contract. Before then, let us first of all see what really lead Hobbes to posit
his idea of social contract.
Login To Comment