The Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. ”(Declaration of Independence US 1776) As we can see the social contract and The Declaration of Independence are alike in many aspects. The Declaration of Independence is not only to list the freedoms of the people, it is also a list of reclamations of what Americans don't like about Britain's policy.
Social Contract is known as the basic concept that the people of a society are supposed to be subject to laws/rules, whether they’re right or wrong. The US Civil Rights Movement is a good example of justifying breaking the social contract. The US Civil Rights Movement was a time between 1954 to 1968 that involved a series of events that would later end up to colored people being freed from segregation laws along with gaining equality in society, even though this led to a time that made discrimination rise significantly. Breaking the social contract was justified in this occasion because of how much colored people were going through, therefore they had to break laws regarding segregation in order to gain justice.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, by Ken Kesey, takes place in a mental hospital in the middle of the 20th century. The narrator, a long term patient by the name of Bromden, or Chief as he is more often called, takes the reader through his everyday life in the ward and his experiences with the other patients, the staff, and the treatments. In this passage, Chief, who is uncharacteristically free from the fog that normally surrounds him, sits in a window of his dorm, watching a dog on the lawn. Through a combination of mechanistic and naturalistic imagery, Chief examines his past freedom and current captivity. The outside of the ward on this particular night mirrors the dynamic within the ward, providing commentary on the way in which Chief’s
The Social Contract is the concept where we the people give up some of our rights to the government in exchange for protection and security from them. One important way the United States moves closer towards the Social
Thomas Hobbes described that life in a state of nature would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” In addition, no one would be able to survive in an Anarchy society where there is no order and the safeguard of others is at risk. Therefore, governments require for citizens to surrender some freedom to obtain the benefits of the government. Thus, the government has preserved its two major purposes: maintaining order and providing public goods to the public and an uprising purpose of promoting equality. The main and oldest purpose of government is to maintain order by establishing laws to preserve life and protect property.
Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his Discourse on Inequality and Social Contract each attempt to explain the rise of and prescribe the proper management of human society. At the foundation of both philosophies is the principle that humans are asocial by nature, a precept each philosopher interprets and approaches in a different way. Hobbes states that nature made humans relatively “equal,” and that “every man is enemy to every man.” Life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” he says, and “every man has right to everything.” Rousseau outlines primitive asocial man having “everything necessary for him to live in the state of nature” from “instinct alone,” and being “neither good nor evil.”
A social contract is where a group of people work and protect each other and give up some freedom. Law of nature are things we know are good and bad. These are some of the terms but there were more. A famous person I learned about in this unit is john locke. He was an enlightenment thinker.
Summary Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theory of social contract, which states that we need moral, legal rules because we want to escape the state of nature which is solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short. In this state, a man can kill others, and there are limited resources. This can soon lead to a state of war in which we are constantly disposed to harm others to achieve our goals. So, in this state of war if a person was to possess a beautiful house or property, and had all the comforts, luxuries, and amenities to lead a wonderful life; others could come and harm him and deprive him of his fruit of labor, life, and liberty. Therefore, the state of nature is that of fear, violence, and distrust.
The boys fail to effectively govern themselves based on Thomas Hobbes 's idea that an absolute leader should work in the best interests of the people. According to Hobbes’, an English philosopher during the 17th century, it is essential for a government to be comprised of a single sovereign power because people are innately evil and selfish (“Biographical Briefing”). He believed that in order to set up a successful absolute monarchy, it is necessary for the leader to make the appropriate decisions that are best for the people (“Biographical Briefing”; Lloyd). If the proper choices aren’t made and people rebel, Hobbes concluded that society would fall into destruction due to the disorder that naturally arises in the community (Lloyd). Because
Thomas Hobbes proposed that the ideal government should be an absolute monarchy as a direct result of experiencing the English Civil War, in which there was internal conflict between the parliamentarians and the royalists. Hobbes made this claim under the assumption that an absolute monarchy would produce consistent policies, reduce conflicts and lower the risk of civil wars due to the singular nature of this ruling system. On another hand, John Locke counters this proposal with the view that absolute monarchies are not legitimate as they are inconsistent with the state of nature. These two diametrically opposed views stem from Hobbes’ and Locke’s different understandings of human nature, namely with regard to power relationships, punishment, and equality in the state of nature. Hobbes’ belief that human beings are selfish and appetitive is antithetical with Locke’s contention that human beings are intrinsically moral even in the state of nature, which results in Locke’s strong disagreement with Hobbes’ proposed absolute monarchy.
TRUE SENSE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: The controversy whether international law is a law or not resolves on the divergent definitions of the word “law” given by the jurist. If we subscribe to the view of Hobbes, Austin and Pufendorf, that law is a command of sovereign enforced by a superior political authority then international law cannot be included in the category of law. On the other hand if, we subscribe to the view that the term“law”cannot be limited to rules enacted by superior political authority, then international law can be included in the category of law. Lawrence aptly remarked that everything depends upon the definition of law which we choose to adopt.
