an analysis of Hobbes social contract theory
...ch it derived its authority and sanction, according to many learned thinkers. Thus the notions of individual rights, property and justice were believed to pre-exist logically the society in which they were operative. Philosophically, social contract theories became less plausible with the development of utilitarian concepts of justice and the development of historical criticism. However, they were influential in the development of modern ideas of democratic and republican forms of Government and are reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S Constitution. HOBBES’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE SOCIAL CONTRACT Social contract theories reached their greatest development in the 17th and18th centuries with theories formulated by great political philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke. I will now examine the social contract from the point of view of Thomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes wanted a state, which he called the Leviathan to ensure that all agreements made were carried out; he called the state the leviathan because the nature of the state he wanted. He wanted a state in which fear would be a motivator for honouring the covenants made since the Leviathan means beast. Thomas Hobbes in his famous work the Leviathan (1651) held that since man was a solitary being who existed in a constant state of warfare, governed by self –interests and was fearful and predatory they must submit to the absolute supremacy of the state, in both secular and religious matters, in order to live by reason and gain lasting preservation. In order to secure order, men entered into an agreement with one another that resulted in the creation of the state or as he terms it ‘the Leviathan’. In return for the surrender of all individual rights the state provided security, order, and peace and demanded absolute obedience. For Hobbes the social contract is thus an agreement between individuals who are willing to make this absolutely unconditional and irrevocable transfer of right and power to the sovereign or Leviathan, for the sake of peace. According to Hobbes, only when people have contracted among themselves and created the Leviathan is there law or justice. Justice and Injustice, Hobbes defined as the keeping and breaking of covenants. This is because covenants and laws are meaningless unless there is a Leviathan to enforce them – law and justice can only exist under a Leviathan. Hobbes stressed upon the fact that the original social covenant or contract that creates the Leviathan is not a contract between the Leviathan and its subjects, but a contract among the subjects themselves. There is not, and cannot be any covenant between the Leviathan and its subjects- because the Leviathan holds all the power, it would be free to break any pledge, promise, agreement, commitment, contract or covenant made, and that would mean that a covenant between the Leviathan and its subjects would be unenforceable and hence would be empty words. Because there cannot be any covenant between the Leviathan and its subjects, it impossible for the Hobbesian sovereign (Leviathan) to act unjustly towards its subjects. The reason being that justice is defined by Hobbes as the keeping of a covenant. Likewise the Leviathan laws (the only laws) cannot be unjust because they alone can be enforced. The Leviathan, according to Hobbes, has the right to lay down any laws it can enforce (it is salient to note here that the Leviathan cannot require us to take our own lives). Were people to live without a common power, a power “to keep them all in awe” their innate viciousness would preclude the development of any commerce, industry, or culture and there would be “no knowledge on the face of the earth; no account of time, no acts, no letters, no society”. There would only be “continual fear, and danger of violent death”. In Hobbes’s views, given the alternatives of anarchy and dictatorship (the Leviathan) [and these are the only alternatives] - the most reasonable choice is dictatorship, even if it does involve the risk of despotism (arbitrary rule, the rule of tyranny). The political establishment of the Leviathan, however, Hobbes made subject to certain minimum safeguards for its subjects. If the Leviathan fails to pr...