Theory of social contract -Criticism of the Theory of Social Contract

Theory of social contract

Theory of social contract

Among the exponents of this theory, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have become the most famous and influential. Here we will explain and discuss their principles in detail.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

In 1651, Hobbes wrote a book called ‘Leviathan’, in which he has given a detailed description of contract theory.

(1) Human nature – Hobbes believed that man is selfish by nature. Social, love, sympathy, compassion, the spirit of renunciation etc. are not the basic elements of his nature. A fundamental principle works behind his entire conduct. This principle is the desire for pleasure and the effort to avoid pain. If human behavior is analyzed, then it will be found that all his actions are controlled by this mechanism of pleasure and pain. Man is not a social animal. Contact with other human beings causes pain, not pleasure. If he feels compassion on seeing the sufferings of others, then it is only in the feeling that I should not suffer from somewhere. Every human being has a natural desire to keep himself alive and when this desire is fulfilled, he keeps on trying to make his vitality even more powerful by gaining more and more power. This is the reason that his ambitions are never fulfilled, and he keeps on fighting for power.

(2) State of Nature – By analyzing the psychological elements, Hobbes paid attention to politics. He believed that in the beginning man lived in the state of nature, time was neither society nor state nor any human laws governing his conduct. His entire conduct was controlled by the desire for self-preservation. Hobbes says that man’s life at that time was “solitude, poverty, filthy, animalistic and meager.” All human beings were equal to each other.

(3) The reason and form of the contract – Now the question is that when this was the condition of man, how did the society and the state become? Hobbes says that there are two natural qualities in man – intelligence and the fear of violent death. If these qualities were not there, then the state of but would continue indefinitely. Man’s intellect has told that peace is a better thing than conflict. Fearing an unnatural death, he learned to control his excretory tendencies. Therefore, people made two principles, which were necessary to maintain peace. Accepted. The first principle is that “every man should strive for peace as much as he can.” The second is that “every man should be satisfied with as much freedom as he is prepared to give to others in his competition.” So the people were ready to give up their natural rights and establish such a power. Who can cast terror upon them and divert their works in the direction of the common good. Each man said to every other person, “I relinquish my right to rule and offer it to this man or group of men (government).” I am, the condition is that you also hand over your authority to it and give it the right to do all things like me.”

(4) The government is sovereign – the government is sovereign, that is, its power is autocratic and limitless. The first reason for this is that the power given by the people to the government by contract is given unconditionally. The government is the result of the contract, it was not involved as a party to the contract. Secondly, at the time of contract, the people handed over all their rights to the government. Thirdly, the subjects cannot cancel the contract at will. Fourthly, since the government is the embodiment of the will of all persons; Therefore in reality his works are the works of all, because “whoever acts through his agent, acts by himself.” And in the end whoever refuses to perform the contract, returns to the original state of war. So it becomes appropriate to destroy it.

(5) Law of the Lord – According to the definition of Hobbes, the law (law) is the order given to the subjects by the Lord (government). Only the Lord can create and cancel laws. He has a right to do, but he himself is on him, not under him. is clear .. The people cannot have any hand in making laws.

(6) No right to protest against the rule – Hobbes has made it very clear that if the ruler becomes tyrannical, then people do not have the right to oppose him. The task of punishing the unjust king should be left to God. The subjects can be free to do only those works on which the ruler does not impose any restrictions.

(7) (Ruler paramount in spiritual matters too – Hobbes was of the opinion that the Lord is supreme in spiritual matters as well as in secular matters, in practice he advised religious tolerance.

Theory of social contract

John Locke (1632-170)

John Locke was the second famous English writer from whom the theory of contract was propounded. He composed his famous treatise ‘Treatises of Government’ in 1960, the main objective was to justify the state revolution of 1688. By that revolution, King James II of England was removed from the throne and in his place, William of Orange was made king by Parliament.

(1) Human nature and state of nature – Locke does not consider man to be selfish and combative by nature, he believes that by nature he is a social animal, the desire to live together with others is innate in him, he is peace-loving and takes care of others’ concerns. There is also a sense of respect in him.

(2) Locke’s statement of contract was that there was no unanimity as to what was the public law in the state of nature, and there were no judges to settle their mutual disputes. Apart from this, the person did not have the ability to defend his natural rights in the face of injustice. This created many difficulties and sufferings and the situation became unbearable. Therefore, it became necessary that there should be definite and well-known laws to protect the natural rights of human beings, there should be someone to explain them and punish those who violate them. So the individuals resolved to leave the state of nature and created the political system by social contract.

(3) Contract and the state arising out of it – The social contract described by Locke was quite different from the contract of Hobbes. In the state of nature, each person interpreted the laws of nature according to his intellect and applied them himself. According to the contract, everyone renounced this right. Together they formed a society and handed over this right to it. The meaning is that now the society has taken upon itself the responsibility of protecting the natural rights to life, liberty and property of the individuals. Thus the agreement was limited to a specific purpose, not as general and comprehensive as the contract of Hobbes. Its second feature was that the power that individuals sacrificed was not assigned to an individual or group of individuals but to the whole society. Thirdly, the power of the political community or state thus born was not autocratic, its function was only to protect natural rights. The thing to remember is that the word ‘dominance’ is not even mentioned in Locke’s book.

The meaning of this type of contract was that the government should be in the hands of the majority, the minorities should accept the will of the majority and the majority could also exercise power if required. A person can give his consent to become a member of a political society either explicitly or silently. If a person remains in the society or owns property within it, it will be presumed that he has agreed to live in the society, even if he does not personally give his consent. It concluded that the terms of the original contract also applied to the descendants of its founders.

Theory of social contract

Rousseau (1712-1770)

Theory of social contract

Rousseau presented his principles in his famous book Social Contract, he did not walk with any specific purpose like Hobbes or Locke, nor did he create his book to support any side. He had to offer a rational explanation of political society.Theory of social contract

(1) Human nature and state of nature – According to the general of his era, Rousseau also assumed that before the origin of the state, humans lived in the state of nature, all people were equal, self-supporting and content. His conduct was not based on feelings of selfishness and pity. At that time there was neither language nor thought, so the man of that period was neither moral nor immoral. He was innocent, neither happy nor sad. At that time man could not even have wealth, because that knowledge arises out of labor and social relations. Rousseau of the state of nature has used the word ‘superior barbarian’.

(2) Contract and its nature – According to Rousseau, political society was established by a social contract and any authority can be justified only on the basis of consent and agreement of individuals. On this part of Rousseau’s theory. Both Hobbes and Locke had influence. His statement was that at the time of contract every person. He gave up all his rights. This is similar to Hobbes’ theory. But according to Rousseau, individuals did not dedicate their rights to any one individual but to the whole society. This was in line with Locke’s principle. Theory of social contract

(3) Form of the state arising out of contract – In the theory of both Hobbes and Locke, there was no concept of any thing called society. The political societies of both were mere groups of individuals. Those people had their own interests and interests. There was no such thing as social interest or collective interest. Rousseau’s political society was completely different from this. He imagined that the society formed out of contract was like an individual. like. The individual has his own life and will, in the same way that society had its own life and will. His life was different from the individual lives of individuals. Thus the political society of Rousseau was not merely an aggregate or group- of individuals, but resembled an organ.

Rousseau considered this type of political society to be sovereign, rather he said that political society is autocratic. His theory was similar to that of Hobbes. The difference was that Hobbes considered an individual or group of individuals to be autocratic, and Rousseau considered the whole society to be autocratic. Simultaneously, Rousseau believed that there is no contradiction between the two things making the whole society autocratic and the freedom of the individuals. Theory of social contract

(4) Theory of Common Will – Now the question is where does the sovereignty reside in the society. According to Rousseau, influence lies in the general will of the society. What is a general wish? I have written earlier that Rousseau’s imagination is such that the political society is one person. Political society has its own will just as the individual has his own will. This desire differs from the various desires of individuals. The characteristic of a desire is that it is in accordance with the general interests of the whole society or not in accordance with the interests of particular individuals. If it is normal and permanent in the society. If it does not act with inspiration, then it will not be called a common will.

Rousseau made a distinction between the general will and the ‘will of all’. If it is not in accordance with the general welfare of all, then it is not a common desire. no number; The desire for the common good is the test of the common will. The way to find out the general will is to ask each person what he thinks is good from the point of view of the common good and then the opinion of the majority is accepted. But this does not mean that Rousseau accepts the majority of the attack as the common will. If the will of the majority is not in the form of common interests, it is not a common will, and the will of the minorities can also be a common will if they are in consonance with the common interests.

Rousseau believed that the common will can do wrong, but it cannot be immoral, that is, it cannot intentionally cause favor or injustice to any person or class. If she does so she will cease to be a normal will and will fall from morality.

According to Rousseau, it is the general will that is really dominant and absolute. But here there is a big difference between Hobbes and Rousseau. Hobbes’s lordship is absolute because he has power. In Hobbes’ theory, dominance has nothing to do with morality. But according to Rousseau, the general will is sovereign because it is moral.

According to Rousseau, there is no contradiction between the autocracy of the common will and the liberty of the individual. Rousseau says that the people voluntarily entered into the social contract and voluntarily accepted the merger of their will with the will of the society. If a person does not agree with the general will, it means that he is clinging to his narrow interests. A person is really free only when he voluntarily acts according to the common will. If there is a conflict between the general will and the will of the individual, then the society has the right to compel the individual to obey the orders of the common will, that is, the individual can be compelled to be free.

Rousseau’s theory implies that general welfare and freedom of the individual are one and the same thing. If we look deeply, then this conclusion does not seem right.

Theory of social contract

Criticism of the Theory of Social Contract

(1) Theory from the historical point of view – only – from the historical point of view this theory is only a fiction. We do not find such an example in the entire history of mankind, when primitive humans established society and state by contract. How could he even think about it when he had no experience of social and political life?

(2) The theory is wrong from the sociological point of view – Sociology also does not confirm the theory of contract. The idea that man once lived alone without society is utterly misleading. Man is a social animal by nature, this is an axiomatic truth. Nature makes man so powerless that without the help of others, his physical existence can continue anywhere. The relationship between parent and child is very natural, no one can deny and from here the society starts, so the concept of such a state is baseless.

(3) The concept of human nature is wrong – the proponents of this theory, especially Hobbes and Rousseau) have fixed the notion regarding human nature and is completely baseless from the psychological point of view. Man is neither as selfish and quarrelsome as Hobbes has portrayed, nor is he as innocent and innocent as Rousseau’s best barbarian. Many schools of modern psychology particularly emphasize that the nature of man is shaped much by his environment. This is the reason that different qualities are found in him. It is impossible to ascertain the basic nature of man. The supporters of contract have imagined the circumstances of their time or the basis of their ideals and the unchanging human nature.

(4) Development of society from population to individual, not from individual to population, the research which has been done in relation to ancient human life, contradicts the contract theory. Sir Henryman says that the development of society is not from the individual to the population, but from the population to the individual. This is the meaning of the principle of contract. It is said that in the beginning human beings were free and used to behave according to their wish, but from the laws and customs of the primitive castes it is proved that the primitive man was not free, but was bound by the shackles of society. Primitive society was not on contract, but. It was based on the principle of position. This means that the place of man in the society was fixed from birth; He did not fix his relationship with others by contract. Every person had to perform duties according to his inborn condition. The development of the concept of rights of the individual took place much later. Theory of social contract

(5) The theory of natural rights is logically wrong – The theory of natural rights is logically wrong. Rights do not arise from physical force but from the consciousness of collective welfare. Therefore rights have a sense of duty. When a person wants some rights for himself, he has to believe that those rights are necessary for others also. This can happen only when there is a feeling of collective welfare among all the individuals. In the state of nature this was not a possibility. At this time physical force was the sole possession of man; But it neither establishes rights nor gives freedom. Rights require duty and freedom requires law. All these three things were lacking in the state of nature.

(6) The theory is dangerous from a practical point of view – From a point of view this theory is very dangerous. If it is assumed that the state arose out of contract, then how can it be accepted that the conditions of the contract, which were executed thousands of years ago, will continue to apply in the same way to the subsequent generations? It would be justified that every person should establish his relationship with the society afresh by contract. But to follow this principle would mean continuous revolution and rebellion. In such a situation the existence of society and the state would become impossible.

Theory of social contract

read these also

development publication

State Secretariat

meaning of justice

definition of politics

Theory of social contract

Leave a Comment

error: Content is protected !!