The Social Contract and The Discourse.pdf

2020

The social contract was introduced by early modern thinkers—Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes, Samuel Pufendorf, and John Locke the most well-known among them—as an account of two things: the historical origins of sovereign power and the moral origins of the principles that make sovereign power just and/or legitimate. It is often associated with the liberal tradition in political theory, because it presupposes the fundamental freedom and equality of all those entering into a political arrangement and the associated rights that follow from the principles of basic freedom and equality. From that starting point, often conceptualized via the metaphor of a “state of nature”, social contract theory develops an account of political legitimacy, grounded in the idea that naturally free and equal human beings have no right to exercise power over one another, except in accordance with the principle of mutual consent.

2019

The philosophical tradition in the West has developed the theoretical foundations of political authority and law since the time of Plato. The collective work of the central figures of this tradition clearly revealed the principles behind legitimate enforceable law. Today, these theoretical principles behind political authority have been significantly confirmed by the social sciences from the 20 th century to the present. Political authority, we shall see, is legitimate to the extent that it promotes rationally grounded principles of justice and equality, socially grounded freedom, promotion of the common good of all, and true universality. These principles may be summed up in the notion of " sovereignty of the people. " Yet both the present world system and the ideologies behind the bourgeois culture of many existing nation-states have distorted and obscured these foundations. In this short essay, I will attempt to identify the legitimate basis for political authority as it has been developed by the great thinkers of the Western tradition. The essay will conclude by showing in what ways all existing sovereign nations exist primarily as concentrations of inherently violent and illegitimate forms of authority. I will then show how truly legitimate political authority can be firmly established in today's world and grounded in clear and rationally defensible principles through a global social contract. Part One: The Foundations of Political Legitimacy As early as the 4 th century BCE, Plato understood that legitimate political authority required a society founded on rational principles. He lived during the great Axial Period in human history when humankind had developed the capacity to use reason to discern the universal principles of ethical and political life. The key issue to this day, in politics as well as ethics, has been whether the ends, goals, and principles of human life are grounded in desires and passions or whether they are grounded in reason. For Plato, reason could discern rational principles (such as justice) and contained the power to subordinate passions and desires within its service. Legitimate government should be premised on the rule and legitimate authority of reason within society. Building on Plato's great insight that the logos or reason in human beings could and should be patterned on the rational foundations of the cosmos, Aristotle also understood that reason could discern the principles of proper human development. He described the relationships between arête (excellence) and a properly developing rational potential with respect to emotions, desires, and reason itself. As for Plato, the state consisted of the various aspects of a human self 'written large'. Legitimate laws not only reflect this rational development but encourage it in the population. For both Plato and Aristotle, legitimate law is what promotes human excellence, justice, and happiness (eudaimonia) in society.

For a long period, society had gone through different eras and experiences. Every state has been under a law that protects and secures every individuals' rights. Society has entered an agreement, a Social Contract that gives everyone equal rights and restrictions to conserve their freedom. Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one of the people who tackled the topic of the contract between humans. Unlike others' take on the topic, he believed in a society where people rule the government. This paper will justify the importance of the Social Contract, focusing on Rousseau's political theory. I will attempt to prove the importance of the social contract theory in preserving the happiness of individuals, creating a harmonious society, while also exposing how the other political theories cannot create a peaceful society.

A government is 1 a group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc. If it is as defined then it inevitably takes away the free will of man. If the government takes away even the slightest bit of man's freedom then why should we recognize it yet alone be governed by it? Societies are usually formed to make living with other people much more viable, but who should be the one to make decisions for the society as a whole?

Social contract, consciously chosen by individuals. , 2023

To many individuals it appears inhuman and senseless to have to adapt to living in a type of society that, due to its inequity, its limited freedom, does not allow individuals to identify the meaning of life (being so different, and antithetical, with respect to the meaning and purpose of society based on statehood), of fully achieve their goals, not allowing to same individuals to fully express their needs for individualization and sociality. This, often unconscious, adaptation (or integration) does not, generally, seem to allow for real alternatives, other than a refuge in madness or despair. To the philosophers, as well as, generally, all types of “intellectuals” and “social scientists” miss the analysis of an important constituent element of human societies and the behavior of human beings: and, namely, what, in common jargon, is defined as stupidity or foolishness, better defined as irrationality, that is the tendency to harm oneself or one's fellowmen, a tendency that is in the nature of organic-stratified societies, such as, for example, societies based on statehood (think of wars and infinite iniquities of all state-based societies), but is also in a to some extent, in the very nature of human beings. If it appears natural to renounce a type of society that is clearly in contrast with human nature, its needs, and purposes, it does not appear to be quite as natural to renounce a part of human nature, even if it is the part of nature that inhibits the realization of the happiness of individuals and communities. Yet it is what individuals can do, and must do, if they want to achieve their own happiness, and avoid the conflict between their natural individuality and sociality, and the social reality in which they live, thus also achieving social happiness. Irrationality, within certain limits, is part of cosmic nature and human nature, but the effects of this irrationality can be neutralized or controlled, as happens at the macrocosmic level, where chance does not prevent the cosmos from existing and from continuing to expand (such as recognizes the modern physics, which incorporates classical physics, as well as quantum mechanics, chaos and complexity theory). The same thing can happen for human beings and for society, that they can, consciously, design and build. The alternative to historically formed societies, unconsciously and not consciously designed, cannot be achieved without conscious planning, based on adequate and conscious knowledge of the elements of inhumanity present in the aforementioned societies. The planning of a new model of society, which tends to fully achieve the satisfaction of the most authentic needs of individuals and their purposes, can only be the work of individuals who are aware of the inadequacy and inhumanity of social reality in the act. The formulation of a design embryo of the basic elements of a new model of human society,, can allow, those who wish, to evaluate its consistency and adequacy, provide their contribution to deepening the study, formulating their own proposals and visions of what, for each of them, should be the society that can allow their own full realization and the fullness of individual and social happiness.