instructions:  

  read one of your classmate’s posts.  Your response should be a meaningful reply that continues the discussion, points out something good about the post, and makes a constructive suggestion for improvement.     

the response is attached

To ensure a society functions, there needs to be some sort of order between those who govern and those who are governed. This order is established by a contract; one which may be created to protect people’s given rights, or one who is created in people’s need for self-preservation. The social contract theory “states that justice is secured, and the state is made legitimate, through an agreement among citizens of the state or between citizens and the rulers of the state.” (Vaughn. 364) This is done in exchange for the “states providing security, rights, and liberties” and this exchange is signed off voluntarily by people, causing the states’ governance to be justified in this binding contract. (Vaughn. 364) Two famous philosophers proposed their versions of the social contract theory, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes.

           John Locke argued that people have both a sense of “natural moral laws” that “help to regulate people’s behaviors” and that they “have inherent God-given rights”. (Vaughn. 370) People’s moral laws are native and people themselves are “free, sociable, equal, and (mostly) at peace.” (Vaughn. 370) Among those God-given rights are the property rights – “not just land – but your own body and any object you change through work.” (Vaughn. 370) According to Locke, these rights can never be taken away – they are “inalienable.” Thus, humanity may establish a government, and provide it with power, but it cannot take away these God-given rights. No entity, not this elected government, nor any other body, can either take away or transfer some of these rights upon themselves. They are humanity’s rights – solely humanity’s – and they need to be preserved. It is the elected government’s responsibility to protect its people’s rights, and serve its people, and direct “its power ‘to no other end but the peace, safety, and public good of the people.’” (Vaughn. 370)

           Guidelines need to be put in place for people to know if their designated government is acting in their interest. These principles would prevent people from taking “justice into their own hands” and ensure the governing state adequately preserves the people’s liberties and the common good. Locke proposed that there needs to be “laws of the land” clearly written to prevent people’s biases; there need to be “impartial judges who can settle the disputes concerning the application of the laws”, and there needs to be “power in the state to enforce the laws.” (Vaughn. 371) If the people feel that these guidelines for the social contract are violated and that their liberties are no longer being protected, then the government is “no longer legitimate” and can be “dissolved.” The people, thus, have “the right to rebel against a government that misuses its power.” The government, therefore, serves the people’s wishes, and is elected by the people, and solely for its people.

Unlike Locke, English philosopher and theorist Thomas Hobbes argued a pessimistic view on humanity. As explained by the textbook, Hobbes argued that people at their “core are selfish, treacherous, dishonest, and violent.” If humanity is left unchecked, then these tendencies will cause an all-out-war between humans, in which every man is against every man. This was described as Hobbes as the “state of nature” and in such a state, “there is no code, culture, or comfort. There is no justice. There is only ‘continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man (is) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’” (Vaughn. 365) However, Hobbes also believed that humans act in their own “self-interest and self-preservation” and that this is guided by reason. (Vaughn. 366)

           Thus, because humanity can be guided by reason, they can conclude that something needs to be done to escape the “war of all against all.” For this disaster of a war to be prevented – or as described by Vaughn, this “horrific nightmare of existence” – there needs to be sovereign authority. Hobbes called such authority the Leviathan. The Leviathan forms a contract with humanity, and in return, humanity is granted justice. Without the Leviathan, according to Hobbes, all humanity will know is a war amongst themselves. Humanity would rather “turn over much of their autonomy, freedom, and power to an absolute sovereign that will forcibly keep the peace, restrain antisocial actions, and compel people to keep their agreements.” (Vaughn. 366) Humanity is therefore willing to give up their liberties to the Leviathan, knowing that there is no turning back and that the Leviathan can do with humanity as it sees fit.

           Albeit Locke and Hobbes’ views on human nature may seem different, they do have certain similarities. Both philosophers agreed that people will form a social contract with a governing body because they reason so; that they must consent to the contract and not be coerced into it; and that the “states authority is justified by this consent of the governed.” (Vaughn. 370) Nevertheless, I do agree with Locke’s view of human nature more than I agree with Hobbes’. I do not believe in such a pessimistic view that mankind is naturally so greedy, disloyal, and sadistic. I agree with Locke that for the most part, people are essentially at peace and that their behaviors are directed by a sense of morality. While I do believe that people can act in their self-interest, that does not necessarily make them selfish. Hobbes would take the pessimistic approach and only see the black and white when I see so much grey in the world, and so much to be considered. A person may act selfishly because they have been molded and forced to act so, by their experiences for example, but this does not make them overall selfish people. They chose to be this way, and as a result, they also could choose to be as Locke sees them, with a chance to be at peace and act equally just.

           I also agree with Locke in the sense that people have inherent, God-given rights, that cannot be taken away by anyone, especially not a governing body. It is more accurate, in my opinion, to believe a government is supposed to work for you, and protect your liberties and freedoms, than do as they wish. Hobbes contends that “people surrender their lives and liberties to the Leviathan in exchange for security and peace” and as a result, these rights are inexistent without the Leviathan. (Vaughn. 370) This, to me, does not seem accurate since I believe that people have rights, such as rights to their autonomy before they establish a government – or Hobbes’ Leviathan – thus the government is not needed to establish these rights since they were already in existence.

           Locke’s believes are quoted in the United States’ Declaration of Independence preamble, in that we have God-given rights that are unalienable and that amongst these are “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Reprinted in Vaughn. 371) I, like Locke and our founding fathers, agree that these rights are unalienable; we are born with these rights, we cannot transfer these rights to anyone else, nor can these rights be taken away. This view, to me, is more accurate since it represents our society as we have learned it and as we experience it daily. We can establish and define our rights, thus create a government that works for us, not like in Hobbes’ view, a government that does with us what it sees fit. We do not need a government to define what our rights are or what justice is because we already have a moral code that guides our decisions and actions. People are born with such rights and liberties, as stated by Locke, and need them to be protected to ensure humanity’s overall peace, happiness, and prosperity.