hey everyone back again today I want to talk about social contract theory that is what it is some of the main figures within it what they say and how they disagree with one another but before jumping into it hi I'm David I explain philosophical Concepts and ideas and ways to make them accessible to you so if you're new here you can like share subscribe see videos I release every single week sometimes twice a week if you found this on YouTube you're going to be able to find it as a podcast where there's just audio wouldn't that be fun or if you found this as a podcast you're going to be able to find it on YouTube where you'll see my office in a video if you want if you want to follow me on any other platforms you can do so on Instagram or Tik Tok or whatever links for all such things in the description if you want to help me out you can do that monetarily via patreon or PayPal no pressure to do that best way to help is just tell your friends who knows they might get a kick out of it tell them come learn about philosophy offer their knowledge in the comments section that' be so marvelous and you do it too I'd love to know what you have to say about this so yeah we're at the minute Mark I always try to keep it at a minute at the minute Mark let us jump into social contract theory now specifically we're going to be looking at Thomas Hobbs John Lock and Jean jaaco so we're going to go through all of these thinkers and then you're going to tell me whose side you're on you agree with more with Hobbs I don't know why you would but maybe you do Hobbs lock rouso I'd love to know what you have to say about them but in short social contract theory refers to peoples coming together around agreed upon contracts covenants or agreements to live together in peace around those contracts or C covenants or agreements these are set up in such a way so as to be mutually beneficial to everybody who consents to them the key point to social contract theory is that people sign up not like you know literally sign up but they cons sent to certain contracts certain obligations because they are beneficial to them and they're beneficial to everybody else now the social contract theorists are very much aware of the fact that as humans we are destined to work together we we really need to now at a little asterisk their views on this differ a little bit but we really need to work together as humans if we don't we wouldn't stand much chance if any of your ancestors if you're listening to this if any of your ancestors had said to the group hey I don't like y'all anymore I'm going to go live in the woods on my own you wouldn't be listening right now that wouldn't be a thing you would not be here as humans we are just so ill equipped for the world we don't have fangs or talons we can't see in the dark we can't do anything we need to really work together and so social contract theorists and they all kind of agree on this believe that nature furnishes us supplies us the ability and the kind of propensity the will to work together in order to create a world that is best for everyone now of the social contract theorists Hobbs comes first Thomas Hobbs and his famous text called Leviathan now what Hobbs suggests is that people leave nature which is violent and chaotic and full of Anarchy and it's a war of what he calls all against all it's just like Perpetual Civil War everyone's in combat with one another hob says that at some point people grow very sick of that way of living and choose to instead live together in peace in order to be free from all the harms present in nature now what this requires for Hobbs is for people to give up some of their Liberties where he says that in nature everybody is free to do whatever they want no one will hold anyone accountable and everything is just pure chaos he says that people actually give up that opportunity to have all of their Liberties in order to live in peace with fewer Liberties but those Liberties will be protected by a sovereign who will hold people accountable if they break the agreed upon rules now what's Central to hobbs' idea is that there there is a sovereign there is somebody or an organization who is going to be the Figure Head of the entire social body and around which the entire social body gravitates and moves with and this person might like I said might be an organization for Hobs it can look like a democracy look like an oligarchy it can be a monarchy it can be any of these things so long as the people have agreed to it now he prefers small small small governments like a monarchy because there are fewer Cooks in the kitchen there are fewer people to add input fewer people to lead the boat astray but he's clear that it can be any one of these governing systems democracy oligarchy or monarchy now from Thomas Hobbs we have John Lock and much of what lock says is quite similar to Hobs but there are some tiny differences tiny differences that reveal entire riffs between their two perspectives Lo also begins from the premise that the state of nature is something that people leave and enter into society or the Commonwealth however unlike Hobs lock doesn't think that the state of nature is this pure area of chaos and Anarchy and War and strife and suffering instead Lo thinks as a you know God-fearing Christian he's like God wouldn't have created nature and had it be totally chaotic in fact nature is incredibly ordered and nature supplies people with fundamental laws that they should follow like to self-preserving bad things in nature will likely mean that bad things will happen to you and so he's clear that nature is actually not that bad at least relative to how Hobbs describes it as this pure horrible place of chaos and Anarchy however Lo still thinks that the Commonwealth or Society offers people more than the state of nature and that is because the state should function or really ideally will function in such a way as to optimize people's ability to enact their liberties now what he means by that is that what makes us human for lock really one of our defining qualities is that we are free and that we are able to act in the world and enact that freedom upon things to acquire them so we can acquire land or other property like things that are ours that we've earned through our sweat through the sweat of our brow by pulling up our bootstraps we have acquired these things and he says that this is possible in the state of nature however there are certain risks there there are Geographic risks there are environmental risks there are risks of other people even if generally things are quite harmonious within nature he's clear that there are still many risks and that people Faire better when they are living under a governmental system that will protect them and protect their property that they have accumulated through work so people consent to this system a kind of Unwritten contract where they will live in harmony and be protected from outside threats or other threats to their property all the while being held in check so as not to infringe on anyone else's rights so for Lo he doesn't like monarchies you know in the way that Hobbs does lo is much more in favor of like maybe representative democracy parliamentary systems where his ultimate goal was to have government be very small where it's only purpose is really to protect people's Liberties and their properties and anything beyond that it's starting to get too bloated it's going to cost too much money and this set the stage for really how the United States would develop Thomas Jefferson was very influenced by John Lock's ideas and we see this really play out in the US and it's hyper emphasis on individuality stand your ground laws there's a point within John Lock's text when he says that you're allowed to kill a thief thief because if they're willing to steal from you then they're willing to take away your Liberty therefore they're willing to kill you so if someone wants to steal your TV lock prescribes that you can then kill them where and we this kind of plays out in American political social imaginary as well where you know you can enact the death penalty if someone tries to steal your car which is in some places you know stand your ground laws but it's had this effect John Lock's philosophy has had this effect on the US among other places that Embrace this idea of Liberty and property and that puts us here into Jean jaaco or Russo people always get so funny when I pronounce names in French uh Russo Russo whatever Jean jaac yeah you know him Russo now he wrote the book called the social contract and he like lock and like Hobbs beli that there's a state of nature and then there's this thing called society and people move into society or this Commonwealth from the state of nature however his view about people entering into society contractually like they set up agreements and and various contracts that push them there rouso is like uh I'm not too sure that people always just consent to it and that actually power might play a little bit of a part historically in forcing people into these kinds of Arrangements into these societies and that is because for rouso the state of nature is actually quite good I mean think about it we have been humans like this for it could be up to 100,000 years we've been humans like this with our brains you know with the humans we are 100,000 years but we only started to develop States like sedentary States about 10,000 years ago that you know don't there could be could be earlier like that we know of kayek and gockley tee and all these places 10,000 years ago even 20,000 years ago was 50,000 years ago let's say that means for 50,000 years before then humans were just like not in states or not like what were they doing well Russo's answer is like actually nature is pretty great IT Supplies people what they need like they get food off of trees they don't have to go and labor for someone else to get money to them buy things they just learn how to work the soil like just animals like it's weird that we mediate our relationship to satisfying our basic needs by our ability to work and then get money and then go buy those things that someone's going to sell to us that they had to employ people to work and when like as humans we should be able to just get things off of trees in the floor and rouso is very aware of this that Society actually creates the conditions for our subjugation where he says in a very famous quote starting out the social contract he says that man is Born Free and everywhere he is in Chains the point being that within nature we are truly free and when we enter Society although we do it maybe willingly we start to impose rules on oursel so why do people do this then why do people actually enter Society well his answer is that like as populations grow people are forced to adapt and adopt more complicated forms of governance and and and control and and cities and all that to really watch everyone keep everyone in check to make sure that everyone's following the rules and contributing and so then States emerge not necessarily through like willing consensual contract as the other people have said but through a kind of necessity now in the face of this he believes that the ultimate goal of government is to try as best as possible is to limit oppressions to limit controls and to Foster the kind of freedom and resources that were originally found in nature so that Society can best mirror that system so yeah let me know what you think whose side are you on here I would I really love to know explain why and yeah on that note if there's anything I've omitted that you think is really important you can add it I can pin the comment everyone can see It'll be so fun if there's anything I got wrong I'd love to hear about it and yeah on that note take care