Exploring the Social Contract Theory

History of the Social Contract Theory. The theory of social contract is as old as political speculation. Ancient Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, discussed it, but only to reject it. The Greek moralists and Roman jurists also deal with this theory. During the 16th-18th centuries, this theory had a universal appeal and was widely believed. Its numerous supporters and writers put forth many versions of this theory. Three of them Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have achieved great fame and arc today considered as its chief exponents. A general statement of the theory. Social contract theory presumes the following three stages, viz. 1. A state of nature, 2. The social contract, and 3. The civil society or state. In the first period of human existence, man was found in the state of nature, when he was uncontrolled by any law of human imposition. he was guided by such regulations as nature itself prescribed for him they are called lows of nature or natural laws man has also some natural rights but they were no more than his natural power according to some writers whether the state of nature was too good or too bad all social contract theorists agree that men decided to contract out of it when the men of the state of nature were compelled to leave it they entered into a voluntary but mutual agreement or contract to put an end to their lawless condition and establish a state or civil society as a result of the contract the individuals gave up their natural isolation and joined into one civil society or state each individual now submitted himself to the joint control of all and was protected by all against the possible rapacity of any other human law now takes the place of natural Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes was an Englishman who lived at the time when his country was passing through the turmoils of a civil war. He though that only an absolute monarchy could restore peace and order in his troubled country. He adopted the current theory of social contract in his book, Leviathan, 1951, in which he advocated the establishment of a strong and absolutist government to maintain law and order. Hobbes on the state of nature. Hobbes begins his theory with the state of nature. According to him, Man was essentially selfish, egoistic and self-seeking. He did not know pity or compassion. His dealings with other men were not ruled by reason or intellect but were characterized by competition, diffidence or distrust and selfish love of power. All men were equally selfish, self-seeking, cunning, covetous, brutal and aggressive. Hobbes gives us an equally dismal description of the state of nature. It was a state of unceasing strife, a condition of war of every man against every other man, where every man is enemy to every man. Hobbes adds, the life of man was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. However, Hobbes recognizes that even in the state of nature men had a sense of the laws of nature. Man enjoyed natural liberty and natural rights, one of which was the right to self-preservation, and another was to take whatever one liked. The perpetual fear and danger to life and property compelled man to make an agreement to put an end to the conditions of perpetual strife among them and establish a common authority or civil society. the contract. Hobbes mentions the exact terms on which every man entered into a mutual agreement with all other s in these words. I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men on this condition that thou givest up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner. The State and the Sovereign. Thus the State is created. Men have completely and unconditionally surrendered their natural rights to some particular man or assembly of men. who thereby become the sovereign while the covenanting individuals become his subjects contract is not between the subjects and the sovereign it is not a governmental compact and therefore can never be violated no matter what the king or the ruler does hobbes theory of sovereignty on such conditions and consequences of the social contract that hobbes based his theory of absolute sovereignty the sovereign alone has the power to make law which is not a council but a command the sovereign is the sole judge of what is right or wrong and what is necessary for the people to believe in what doctrines are fit to be taught to them he has the right to make war or peace appoint judges and officials of the state and to confer honors and give punishment as he likes appreciation of theory hobbes has exercised a great influence on political thinkers as for example on the german philosopher hegel and his own countrymen the jurist john austin his theory has certain merits It is a correct theory of legal sovereignty and rights. As Pollock says, Hobbes defines legal sovereignty and legal obligation with admirable strength and precision. Moreover, Hobbes was so filled with the desire to maintain peace and order in human life that he went to the extreme of justifying despotism by an absolute king or ruler. He skillfully turned upside down the theory of social contract, which was really a theory of free consent and voluntary association, into a theory of absolute power. Defects. 1. Fear cannot alone be the basis of the state. According to Hobbes, fear is the psychological basis of the state. It was the fear of others and of immediate death which, so to say, drove the men of the natural state into a mutual agreement and civil society. But it does not appeal to common sense, as Locke said afterwards, that these men who were after all nearly equal in strength and cunning, should willingly put their necks under the heels of an absolute master with unlimited authority over them. How could the cats agree that owing to their mutual fear, they should be ruled by a lion? 2. His analysis of human nature is also unsound. Hobbes describes human nature in such dark and dismal colors that it is unreal and untrue. Man is not so inherently selfish, aggressive and self-centered, as he describes him. Man is selfish, yet he is also a social creature. He feels sympathy towards others and has ALSP altruistic tendencies. Love, sympathy and compassion are natural to him. Hobbes's view of human nature is false, because it is one-sided and incomplete. 3. Twisted meaning of the word, contract. A contract is always between two parties. But Hobbes's contract was one-sided or unilateral. The sovereign is not a party to it, nor it is binding on him. 4. Hobbes is inconsistent in describing the tens of the contract. At first he says that men completely surrendered all natural rights to the sovereign when they entered into a covenant among themselves. but subsequently he asserts that they have regained the natural right of self-preservation and self-defense there could not be a complete surrender when something is still preserved in the contract even the complete surrender of rights does not appeal to common sense the conception of the natural rights is also false 5. hobbes's legal theory of lights and sovereignty is also one-sided this theory tells us that rights must be recognized by the state but it does not inform us why and when they should receive such a recognition Hobbes further says that law is the command of the sovereign, but this does not explain the real nature of law. Nevertheless, the juristic theory of sovereignty, rights and laws had enabled Hobbes to make the sovereign's power absolute which was, indeed, the real purpose of his theory of social contract. John Locke. John Locke was an English philosopher, expounded his social contract theory in his book, Two Treatises on Civil Government, wrote in 1660. as a defense of the constitutional monarchy which the glorious revolution of 1688 had established in england lock on the state of nature lock docs not paint a dismal picture of the state of nature it was not as hobbes held a state of war and misery on the contrary it was as locke says one of peace goodwill mutual assistance and preservation men enjoyed freedom and equality in it each lived according to his own liking You like Hobbes's Natural Man. Locke's man in the state of nature was not selfish or aggressive, but social and sympathetic. His attitude towards his fellow men was that of reason and justice. Moreover, man possessed natural rights in the state of nature, based on law of nature. These rights were life, liberty and property. Although the state of nature was a condition of peace and reason, yet a few inconveniences were experienced in it. They were three in number. 1. The law of nature was not defined clearly. because the interest as well as the intelligence of each man differed from others, and each interpreted the law of nature as he liked. 2. There were no competent, impartial and known judges to interpret the law. 3. There was no common authority to enforce it. That is the reason why once a dispute began in the state of nature, it could not be put to an end. This necessitated the institution of civil society or state in order to remove the inconveniences and insecurities of the state of nature. the contracts. Although Locke did not state it explicitly, yet he impliedly said that there were two contracts. The first contract established the political society or state, and the other the government. According to Locke, each individual, finding the state of nature intolerable owing to its inconveniences, entered into a contract. He agreed with all other individuals to give up his natural right of executing the law of nature and punishing offenders against it. But he did not give up all his natural rights, as Hobbes asserted. Moreover, the natural right was given not to a man or assembly of men, as Hobbes said, but to the community as a whole. Locke described it in these words, there and there only is political society where every one of the members has quitted the natural power, resigned it up into the hands of the community in all cases that exclude him not from appealing for protection to the law established by it. This society thus becomes, by the act of individuals who form it, vested with the functions of determining what are offenses against the law of nature, and punish violations of that law. After establishing the state, the people entered into another contract, this time with the rulers the legislature. This is the governmental compact. Locke describes it thus, the legislative power, constituted by the consent of the people, becomes the supreme power in the commonwealth, but it is not arbitrary. It must be exercised as it is given for the good of the subjects. Government is in the nature of a trust and embraces only such powers as are transferred at the time of the change from a state of nature. The power of the government is limited to the condition that it is exercised to carry out the established known laws, applied by impartial judges. Locke's theory of limited sovereignty and right of revolt. Locke's contract is a limited contract, for the individual surrounded only part of his natural rights. The power of the state is, therefore, limited, the government cannot exercise unlimited powers, as Hobbes's sovereign did. As a matter of fact, Locke did not even use the term, sovereignty, in his book. Instead of it, he used the term, supreme power of the legislature. As he himself says, the legislative power constituted by the consent of the people, becomes the supreme power in the commonwealth, but is not arbitrary.Lt must be exercised as it is given, for the good of the subjects. The legislature cannot transfer its power to any other person or body. It is but a delegated power form the people, who alone can dispose of it. So, behind the legislature stand the people or community as final embodiment of power. If the legislature or government betrays the trust, the people can depose it. The community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislatures, whenever they shall be so foolish or so wicked as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subjects, thus Locke defended the people's right to rebellion, which is the basis of this theory of limited sovereignty. Thus Locke justified the glorious revolution of 1688 in his country. which ousted the autocratic Stuart Kings from power and Estallock shed parliament as the sovereign power in England. Criticism of Locke's theory Locke's theory has several merits. As H. J. Lossky pointed out, Locke is a philosopher of consent. His theory of consent has now become a basic principle of the English and American political philosophy. For this purpose he distinguishes the state form the government. The government derives its power and authority from the consent of the people who are ultimately the sovereign. Locke thus gives us a theory of limited sovereignty or constitutional government. Hobbes made the sovereign absolute, but Locke recognized the fact that there is a power behind the throne, that the exercise of sovereignty ultimately depends upon the consent of the people who obeys it. Another contribution of Locke to political science is his theory of natural rights. He considers life, liberty and property as inalienable rights of every individual. The end for which the state was established is to secure these natural rights. Although the concept of natural rights is misleading, yet to base rights on the nature of man is justifiable. The main defect in Locke's theory is that he ignored the concept of legal sovereignty. He also failed to see that a revolution, however desirable, is never legal. Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The third great exponent of the social contract was the French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. he was by birth a swiss but adopted france as his country he lived in the pre-revolutionary 18th century of france then ruled by the absolutist bourbon kings rousseau's writings inspired the great french revolution of 1789 he presented his theory in two books namely a discoise on the origin of inequality and the social contract rousseau on the state of nature rousseau's views on the state of nature are found in his discourse on the origin of inequality. Like Locke, Rousseau believed that man lived a free, happy and peaceful life in the state of nature. It was an ideal condition. But two things put an end to this happy existence. One of them was, the growth of population, and the other was the origin of, private property, which divided men because they began to think in terms mine and thine. With these development peace, equality and freedom of the state of nature were gone, and in their place war, murder, disputes and quarrels broke out among men. They however, escaped from this miserable existence only by entering into contract and instituting a civil society. The contract, in his second and more famous book, Social Contract, Rousseau does not concern himself with the question of the state of nature. He begins his book, Social Contract, with these memorable words, Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains. It means that man lived free in the earlier natural state. but is now everywhere bound by the laws and customs of civilized life. The problem is how to justify the obedience of these laws. Its solution lies in substituting natural freedom by civil freedom. The problem is solved by the social contract. The contract which created the civil society or state is, according to Rousseau, as thus founded, each of us puts into a single mass his person and all his power under the supreme direction of the general will, and we receive as a body each member as an indivisible part of the whole. As in Hobbes's theory, so in Rousseau's the individual surrenders his all, but, unlike Hobbes, he surrenders not to a single person or body of persons but to the whole community. Rousseau's contract, like that of Locke, makes not one person but the whole community sovereign. Rousseau's doctrine of general will and popular sovereignty, the individuals surrendered completely and unconditionally their natural freedom and powers to the community as a whole, which became, thereby, the sovereign body. The body so created is a moral and collective body, because it is under the general will, that is, the will of the whole community. The general will is sovereign. It is sovereign because, firstly, it is created by the free act of those who entered into the contract and have surrendered their individual wills and interests to the supreme direction of the general will and secondly because it is the general will always aims at the common good and it can never error it is supreme over all individual interests according to rousseau the individuals have surrendered all their rights and have surrendered them not to one person but to the whole community this complete and unconditional surrender ensures the equality and liberty of all and also of the life and property of each individual He goes on to say that no individual can justifiably disobey the general will. By obeying the general will, the individual really obeys himself, because he has created it. When he disobeys the law which is the expression of the general will, he really, disobeys himself, and when he is punished for it, he has himself ordered his punishment. Real coercion is not possible in society. When a criminal is punished, he has willed it himself. Coercion is only another aspect of freedom. Rousseau expresses it thus, in order then that the social contract may not be an empty formula, it includes the undertaking that whoever refuses to obey the general will, shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free. Thus Rousseau declares that by obeying the sovereign unconditionally and unquestioningly, the individual becomes really free. The general will is always right. Rousseau emphasizes that, what is not right is not the general will, in this way he subordinated the individual to the state. Influence of Rousseau's theory. Rousseau exercised great influence on political thought and events, especially of France, Germany and America. Rousseau's revolutionary philosophy proclaimed, firstly, that all men are by nature free and equal, secondly, that the authority of government is based on a contract freely entered into by the equal and independent individuals, and, thirdly, that the people are the sovereign. This philosophy inspired the French revolutionaries. who embodied it in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789, and also influenced the American framers of the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, Rousseau was an admirer of direct democracy of the ancient Greek type. He emphasized that the people alone should be the law makers. We find his influence in the adoption of the methods of direct legislation by the people, e.g., the referendum and the initiative in such countries as Switzerland, etc. Popular sovereignty, the idea of consent, and direct legislation by the people were revolutionary teachings in the days of the absolute kings, and led to the French Revolution of 1789. Criticism of Rousseau's social contract theory. Merits of this theory, Rousseau distinguished clearly between Thse state and the government. He expounded a theory of popular sovereignty. He is the father of modern democracy. He tries to reconcile the absolute authority of the state with the absolute freedom of the individual. He demonstrated one great political truth, that the authority of the government is finally based on the consent of the governed and that force will not be the basis of the state. Defects of Theory Rousseau's philosophy also contains certain defects and paradoxes. He makes no distinction between the state and society, a defect which is found in all idealistic thinking. His main defect, however, lies in his explanation of the general will. He has endowed it with absolute powers. but he failed to see that the unrestricted power of the general will might prove to be as arbitrary and tyrannical to certain individuals and sections of the people as was the absolute power of the kings far there is no guarantee that the general will is absolutely disinterested and impartial among the conflicting wills of all the individuals rousseau asserts that the general will is neither the will of all nor the will of the majority theoretically it is correct but in practice the general will is expressed as the will of the majority and not as the will of all lastly by subordinating the individual will completely to the general will Rousseau subordinated the individual to the unrestricted authority of the state. He thus paved the way for the authoritarian or totalitarian states of present times. Criticism of the social contract theory. We must, as keep in mind its two chief aspects, as professor Gilchrist says about this theory, as a theory of the historical origin of the state, and as a theory of political obligation. Although the historical explanation of this theory is quite false, yet much can be said in favor of its second aspect. Merits of the Social Contract Theory Ah, the Social Contract Theory is mainly false and misleading. It contains some elements of truth. First of all, it emphasizes the fact that the state is a human institution and not a divine creation. More than this, it lays stress on one fundamental political truth, that the state rests on the consent of the governed. It proclaims that will not force or divine sanction, is the basis of the state. By emphasizing the elements of consent and will, it has ushered in the era of modern democracy. It inspired men to think that they could choose the government by their own free choice and will. This is the essence of political obligation of a citizen of the modern state. Viewed in this light, the social contract theory may not be historically tenable but philosophically it is the only theory possible. Of all the philosophies of the state, it expresses the proper interpretation of the relations between the individual and the state is based on consent and will. This theory combated the claims of irresponsible rulers and privileged classes. It completely refuted the theory of the divine right of kings. Its great value lies in its refutation of absolutism and its support for democracy. The origin of modern democracy is to be traced from the writings of the social contract thinkers.

History of the Social Contract Theory. The theory of social contract is as old as political speculation. Ancient Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, discussed it, but only to reject it.

The Greek moralists and Roman jurists also deal with this theory. During the 16th-18th centuries, this theory had a universal appeal and was widely believed. Its numerous supporters and writers put forth many versions of this theory.

Three of them Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have achieved great fame and arc today considered as its chief exponents. A general statement of the theory. Social contract theory presumes the following three stages, viz.

1. A state of nature, 2. The social contract, and 3. The civil society or state. In the first period of human existence, man was found in the state of nature, when he was uncontrolled by any law of human imposition. he was guided by such regulations as nature itself prescribed for him they are called lows of nature or natural laws man has also some natural rights but they were no more than his natural power according to some writers whether the state of nature was too good or too bad all social contract theorists agree that men decided to contract out of it when the men of the state of nature were compelled to leave it they entered into a voluntary but mutual agreement or contract to put an end to their lawless condition and establish a state or civil society as a result of the contract the individuals gave up their natural isolation and joined into one civil society or state each individual now submitted himself to the joint control of all and was protected by all against the possible rapacity of any other human law now takes the place of natural Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes was an Englishman who lived at the time when his country was passing through the turmoils of a civil war.

He though that only an absolute monarchy could restore peace and order in his troubled country. He adopted the current theory of social contract in his book, Leviathan, 1951, in which he advocated the establishment of a strong and absolutist government to maintain law and order. Hobbes on the state of nature. Hobbes begins his theory with the state of nature. According to him, Man was essentially selfish, egoistic and self-seeking.

He did not know pity or compassion. His dealings with other men were not ruled by reason or intellect but were characterized by competition, diffidence or distrust and selfish love of power. All men were equally selfish, self-seeking, cunning, covetous, brutal and aggressive.

Hobbes gives us an equally dismal description of the state of nature. It was a state of unceasing strife, a condition of war of every man against every other man, where every man is enemy to every man. Hobbes adds, the life of man was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.

However, Hobbes recognizes that even in the state of nature men had a sense of the laws of nature. Man enjoyed natural liberty and natural rights, one of which was the right to self-preservation, and another was to take whatever one liked. The perpetual fear and danger to life and property compelled man to make an agreement to put an end to the conditions of perpetual strife among them and establish a common authority or civil society.

the contract. Hobbes mentions the exact terms on which every man entered into a mutual agreement with all other s in these words. I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men on this condition that thou givest up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner.

The State and the Sovereign. Thus the State is created. Men have completely and unconditionally surrendered their natural rights to some particular man or assembly of men.

who thereby become the sovereign while the covenanting individuals become his subjects contract is not between the subjects and the sovereign it is not a governmental compact and therefore can never be violated no matter what the king or the ruler does hobbes theory of sovereignty on such conditions and consequences of the social contract that hobbes based his theory of absolute sovereignty the sovereign alone has the power to make law which is not a council but a command the sovereign is the sole judge of what is right or wrong and what is necessary for the people to believe in what doctrines are fit to be taught to them he has the right to make war or peace appoint judges and officials of the state and to confer honors and give punishment as he likes appreciation of theory hobbes has exercised a great influence on political thinkers as for example on the german philosopher hegel and his own countrymen the jurist john austin his theory has certain merits It is a correct theory of legal sovereignty and rights. As Pollock says, Hobbes defines legal sovereignty and legal obligation with admirable strength and precision. Moreover, Hobbes was so filled with the desire to maintain peace and order in human life that he went to the extreme of justifying despotism by an absolute king or ruler. He skillfully turned upside down the theory of social contract, which was really a theory of free consent and voluntary association, into a theory of absolute power.

Defects. 1. Fear cannot alone be the basis of the state. According to Hobbes, fear is the psychological basis of the state. It was the fear of others and of immediate death which, so to say, drove the men of the natural state into a mutual agreement and civil society. But it does not appeal to common sense, as Locke said afterwards, that these men who were after all nearly equal in strength and cunning, should willingly put their necks under the heels of an absolute master with unlimited authority over them.

How could the cats agree that owing to their mutual fear, they should be ruled by a lion? 2. His analysis of human nature is also unsound. Hobbes describes human nature in such dark and dismal colors that it is unreal and untrue. Man is not so inherently selfish, aggressive and self-centered, as he describes him.

Man is selfish, yet he is also a social creature. He feels sympathy towards others and has ALSP altruistic tendencies. Love, sympathy and compassion are natural to him. Hobbes's view of human nature is false, because it is one-sided and incomplete. 3. Twisted meaning of the word, contract.

A contract is always between two parties. But Hobbes's contract was one-sided or unilateral. The sovereign is not a party to it, nor it is binding on him.

4. Hobbes is inconsistent in describing the tens of the contract. At first he says that men completely surrendered all natural rights to the sovereign when they entered into a covenant among themselves. but subsequently he asserts that they have regained the natural right of self-preservation and self-defense there could not be a complete surrender when something is still preserved in the contract even the complete surrender of rights does not appeal to common sense the conception of the natural rights is also false 5. hobbes's legal theory of lights and sovereignty is also one-sided this theory tells us that rights must be recognized by the state but it does not inform us why and when they should receive such a recognition Hobbes further says that law is the command of the sovereign, but this does not explain the real nature of law. Nevertheless, the juristic theory of sovereignty, rights and laws had enabled Hobbes to make the sovereign's power absolute which was, indeed, the real purpose of his theory of social contract. John Locke.

John Locke was an English philosopher, expounded his social contract theory in his book, Two Treatises on Civil Government, wrote in 1660. as a defense of the constitutional monarchy which the glorious revolution of 1688 had established in england lock on the state of nature lock docs not paint a dismal picture of the state of nature it was not as hobbes held a state of war and misery on the contrary it was as locke says one of peace goodwill mutual assistance and preservation men enjoyed freedom and equality in it each lived according to his own liking You like Hobbes's Natural Man. Locke's man in the state of nature was not selfish or aggressive, but social and sympathetic. His attitude towards his fellow men was that of reason and justice. Moreover, man possessed natural rights in the state of nature, based on law of nature. These rights were life, liberty and property.

Although the state of nature was a condition of peace and reason, yet a few inconveniences were experienced in it. They were three in number. 1. The law of nature was not defined clearly. because the interest as well as the intelligence of each man differed from others, and each interpreted the law of nature as he liked. 2. There were no competent, impartial and known judges to interpret the law.

3. There was no common authority to enforce it. That is the reason why once a dispute began in the state of nature, it could not be put to an end. This necessitated the institution of civil society or state in order to remove the inconveniences and insecurities of the state of nature. the contracts. Although Locke did not state it explicitly, yet he impliedly said that there were two contracts.

The first contract established the political society or state, and the other the government. According to Locke, each individual, finding the state of nature intolerable owing to its inconveniences, entered into a contract. He agreed with all other individuals to give up his natural right of executing the law of nature and punishing offenders against it. But he did not give up all his natural rights, as Hobbes asserted. Moreover, the natural right was given not to a man or assembly of men, as Hobbes said, but to the community as a whole.

Locke described it in these words, there and there only is political society where every one of the members has quitted the natural power, resigned it up into the hands of the community in all cases that exclude him not from appealing for protection to the law established by it. This society thus becomes, by the act of individuals who form it, vested with the functions of determining what are offenses against the law of nature, and punish violations of that law. After establishing the state, the people entered into another contract, this time with the rulers the legislature.

This is the governmental compact. Locke describes it thus, the legislative power, constituted by the consent of the people, becomes the supreme power in the commonwealth, but it is not arbitrary. It must be exercised as it is given for the good of the subjects.

Government is in the nature of a trust and embraces only such powers as are transferred at the time of the change from a state of nature. The power of the government is limited to the condition that it is exercised to carry out the established known laws, applied by impartial judges. Locke's theory of limited sovereignty and right of revolt.

Locke's contract is a limited contract, for the individual surrounded only part of his natural rights. The power of the state is, therefore, limited, the government cannot exercise unlimited powers, as Hobbes's sovereign did. As a matter of fact, Locke did not even use the term, sovereignty, in his book. Instead of it, he used the term, supreme power of the legislature. As he himself says, the legislative power constituted by the consent of the people, becomes the supreme power in the commonwealth, but is not arbitrary.Lt must be exercised as it is given, for the good of the subjects.

The legislature cannot transfer its power to any other person or body. It is but a delegated power form the people, who alone can dispose of it. So, behind the legislature stand the people or community as final embodiment of power. If the legislature or government betrays the trust, the people can depose it. The community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislatures, whenever they shall be so foolish or so wicked as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subjects, thus Locke defended the people's right to rebellion, which is the basis of this theory of limited sovereignty.

Thus Locke justified the glorious revolution of 1688 in his country. which ousted the autocratic Stuart Kings from power and Estallock shed parliament as the sovereign power in England. Criticism of Locke's theory Locke's theory has several merits. As H. J. Lossky pointed out, Locke is a philosopher of consent.

His theory of consent has now become a basic principle of the English and American political philosophy. For this purpose he distinguishes the state form the government. The government derives its power and authority from the consent of the people who are ultimately the sovereign.

Locke thus gives us a theory of limited sovereignty or constitutional government. Hobbes made the sovereign absolute, but Locke recognized the fact that there is a power behind the throne, that the exercise of sovereignty ultimately depends upon the consent of the people who obeys it. Another contribution of Locke to political science is his theory of natural rights.

He considers life, liberty and property as inalienable rights of every individual. The end for which the state was established is to secure these natural rights. Although the concept of natural rights is misleading, yet to base rights on the nature of man is justifiable. The main defect in Locke's theory is that he ignored the concept of legal sovereignty. He also failed to see that a revolution, however desirable, is never legal.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The third great exponent of the social contract was the French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. he was by birth a swiss but adopted france as his country he lived in the pre-revolutionary 18th century of france then ruled by the absolutist bourbon kings rousseau's writings inspired the great french revolution of 1789 he presented his theory in two books namely a discoise on the origin of inequality and the social contract rousseau on the state of nature rousseau's views on the state of nature are found in his discourse on the origin of inequality. Like Locke, Rousseau believed that man lived a free, happy and peaceful life in the state of nature.

It was an ideal condition. But two things put an end to this happy existence. One of them was, the growth of population, and the other was the origin of, private property, which divided men because they began to think in terms mine and thine. With these development peace, equality and freedom of the state of nature were gone, and in their place war, murder, disputes and quarrels broke out among men. They however, escaped from this miserable existence only by entering into contract and instituting a civil society.

The contract, in his second and more famous book, Social Contract, Rousseau does not concern himself with the question of the state of nature. He begins his book, Social Contract, with these memorable words, Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains. It means that man lived free in the earlier natural state.

but is now everywhere bound by the laws and customs of civilized life. The problem is how to justify the obedience of these laws. Its solution lies in substituting natural freedom by civil freedom. The problem is solved by the social contract. The contract which created the civil society or state is, according to Rousseau, as thus founded, each of us puts into a single mass his person and all his power under the supreme direction of the general will, and we receive as a body each member as an indivisible part of the whole.

As in Hobbes's theory, so in Rousseau's the individual surrenders his all, but, unlike Hobbes, he surrenders not to a single person or body of persons but to the whole community. Rousseau's contract, like that of Locke, makes not one person but the whole community sovereign. Rousseau's doctrine of general will and popular sovereignty, the individuals surrendered completely and unconditionally their natural freedom and powers to the community as a whole, which became, thereby, the sovereign body. The body so created is a moral and collective body, because it is under the general will, that is, the will of the whole community.

The general will is sovereign. It is sovereign because, firstly, it is created by the free act of those who entered into the contract and have surrendered their individual wills and interests to the supreme direction of the general will and secondly because it is the general will always aims at the common good and it can never error it is supreme over all individual interests according to rousseau the individuals have surrendered all their rights and have surrendered them not to one person but to the whole community this complete and unconditional surrender ensures the equality and liberty of all and also of the life and property of each individual He goes on to say that no individual can justifiably disobey the general will. By obeying the general will, the individual really obeys himself, because he has created it.

When he disobeys the law which is the expression of the general will, he really, disobeys himself, and when he is punished for it, he has himself ordered his punishment. Real coercion is not possible in society. When a criminal is punished, he has willed it himself. Coercion is only another aspect of freedom.

Rousseau expresses it thus, in order then that the social contract may not be an empty formula, it includes the undertaking that whoever refuses to obey the general will, shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free. Thus Rousseau declares that by obeying the sovereign unconditionally and unquestioningly, the individual becomes really free. The general will is always right.

Rousseau emphasizes that, what is not right is not the general will, in this way he subordinated the individual to the state. Influence of Rousseau's theory. Rousseau exercised great influence on political thought and events, especially of France, Germany and America. Rousseau's revolutionary philosophy proclaimed, firstly, that all men are by nature free and equal, secondly, that the authority of government is based on a contract freely entered into by the equal and independent individuals, and, thirdly, that the people are the sovereign.

This philosophy inspired the French revolutionaries. who embodied it in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789, and also influenced the American framers of the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, Rousseau was an admirer of direct democracy of the ancient Greek type.

He emphasized that the people alone should be the law makers. We find his influence in the adoption of the methods of direct legislation by the people, e.g., the referendum and the initiative in such countries as Switzerland, etc. Popular sovereignty, the idea of consent, and direct legislation by the people were revolutionary teachings in the days of the absolute kings, and led to the French Revolution of 1789. Criticism of Rousseau's social contract theory. Merits of this theory, Rousseau distinguished clearly between Thse state and the government.

He expounded a theory of popular sovereignty. He is the father of modern democracy. He tries to reconcile the absolute authority of the state with the absolute freedom of the individual.

He demonstrated one great political truth, that the authority of the government is finally based on the consent of the governed and that force will not be the basis of the state. Defects of Theory Rousseau's philosophy also contains certain defects and paradoxes. He makes no distinction between the state and society, a defect which is found in all idealistic thinking. His main defect, however, lies in his explanation of the general will. He has endowed it with absolute powers.

but he failed to see that the unrestricted power of the general will might prove to be as arbitrary and tyrannical to certain individuals and sections of the people as was the absolute power of the kings far there is no guarantee that the general will is absolutely disinterested and impartial among the conflicting wills of all the individuals rousseau asserts that the general will is neither the will of all nor the will of the majority theoretically it is correct but in practice the general will is expressed as the will of the majority and not as the will of all lastly by subordinating the individual will completely to the general will Rousseau subordinated the individual to the unrestricted authority of the state. He thus paved the way for the authoritarian or totalitarian states of present times. Criticism of the social contract theory. We must, as keep in mind its two chief aspects, as professor Gilchrist says about this theory, as a theory of the historical origin of the state, and as a theory of political obligation. Although the historical explanation of this theory is quite false, yet much can be said in favor of its second aspect.

Merits of the Social Contract Theory Ah, the Social Contract Theory is mainly false and misleading. It contains some elements of truth. First of all, it emphasizes the fact that the state is a human institution and not a divine creation. More than this, it lays stress on one fundamental political truth, that the state rests on the consent of the governed.

It proclaims that will not force or divine sanction, is the basis of the state. By emphasizing the elements of consent and will, it has ushered in the era of modern democracy. It inspired men to think that they could choose the government by their own free choice and will.

This is the essence of political obligation of a citizen of the modern state. Viewed in this light, the social contract theory may not be historically tenable but philosophically it is the only theory possible. Of all the philosophies of the state, it expresses the proper interpretation of the relations between the individual and the state is based on consent and will. This theory combated the claims of irresponsible rulers and privileged classes. It completely refuted the theory of the divine right of kings.

Its great value lies in its refutation of absolutism and its support for democracy. The origin of modern democracy is to be traced from the writings of the social contract thinkers.

Transcript for:Exploring the Social Contract Theory

Transcript for:
Exploring the Social Contract Theory