Political philosophy relates to the creation and running the civil societies. It tries to explain the need for good relations between individuals and their governments. Questions arise as to which of the two is superior to the other (D’agostino, 1996). As such, we shall be looking at the importance of an ethical balance between the individuals and government by describing theories proposed by Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke. Their strengths, weaknesses in coercing an authority over the people, and lastly, defining the relationship of individuals to their authorities.
The Social Contract Theory presents a state of nature in which man stayed in the beginning. There was no authority and laws regulating them. In a bid to overcome challenges emanating from this state, humankind entered into two agreements; Pactum Unionis where people wanted the protection of both property and life resulting in a society which people respected one another living in peace and harmony. And Pactum Subjectionis, where people united and gave an authority, their obedience, rights and freedom. In return, they were given protection to both their lives and security and limited freedom. This explicitly showed that authority and the state were as a result of the two coming into an agreement.
Hobbes analysis of social contract
Lascar, presented a state of selfishness and fear, according to him, man lived in constant fear and in a chaotic environment. Mans desire for order and peace led him to enter into a contract (Lascar, 2013). They surrendered all their freedoms and rights to an authority which commanded obedience leading to rulers and subjects. Subjects held no rights on the authority; however, moral obligations were on the authority, they were held accountable to natural law, and this presented absolutism. He presented humankind as self-interested, further describing them as reasonable. He reasoned that real law is a civil one, law enforced and commanded by sovereignty, and was created to limit man’s freedom, in so doing, preventing harm and joining them against a central enemy.
Locks’ analysis of social contract
Locke, presented a state of golden age where enjoyable and good living conditions existed, however property security was of major concern. Men exclusive natural rights were evidenced as he perceived a perfect state with complete liberty over one’s life as he/she deemed it fit. People were seen as equals, there was no authority to discipline people for wrong doing, a state of liberty (Lascar, 2013). However, this posed a problem as one wasn’t allowed to own so much than they could use. It was men’s need to protect their property that led to the abandonment of that state of nature, by entering into Social Contract , he didn’t surrender all rights to an authority, only the right to enforce and preserve law of nature. The aim of the authority was to protect and uphold the men natural right, however, should it fail in doing so, they would seize to exist and could be cast out of power.
Rousseau’s’ analysis of social contract
Rousseau presented a state in which humanity was happy and enjoyed equality. As time lapsed, populations increased forcing humanity to adapt to satisfying their needs leading to development of small communities and families (Lascar, 2013). Labor was divided between families leading to leisure time, characterization followed leading to public values, contempt, shame and envy. According to him, the original happiness, freedom, liberty and equality existing before were lost in modern civilization. Social Contract offered a social arrangement because the states’ creation was to assured equality, freedom and guaranteed rights. The laws and state were as a product of the peoples general will.
In conclusion, Rousseau propounded that government, state and the law were interchangeable, this is however not the case presently. Even though government can be overthrown, the state cannot since it exists where no government exists. Hobbes idea of absolutism is presently void since democracy exists. He again brings about absolute authority to the sovereign; this brings about arbitrariness which is against the law. Locke’s’ concept of nature is vague since conflict in regards to property leads to chaos in the society, as such; there can’t be peace in a society if they have been in conflict regarding property.