Personality and moral self explain how and why human beings make free choices. The libertarianism theory has been explained by CA Campbell, who said that human beings see themselves as free agents and therefore accept moral responsibility for their actions. Humans must accept responsibility for these actions and face any consequences that may come their way. John Stuart Mill - an influencal figure in Liberatarianism – believe we are free and morally responsible for all our actions. Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society.
A communitarian view on society states that each individual is responsible for his status inside a given community; that such a community is equally responsible for the status of its individuals. It states that any law or practice should be based on a purely democratic and not a simple majoritarian perspective. Polities should be determined to foster participation and deliberation, not to dictate policies but rather mandate a collective perspective. Indeed all this must be done, and more, in an effort to regulate a healthy society in which all individuals are equal in the community and that contribute equally back to the community. However, how can a society be democratic without being majoritarian?
Aquinas considered that by using our reason to reflect on our human nature we could discover our specific end purpose. Aquinas used the ideas of Aristotle and the Stoics as an underpinning for Natural Law saying- human beings have an essential rational nature given by God in order for us to live and flourish. Aristotle said even without knowledge of god, reason can discover the laws that lead to human flourishing. The Stoics said Natural Laws are universal and unchangeable and should be used to judge of particular societies. We use this is help us choose the right moral action is situations.
He is therefore considered a founding father of modern socialism and Communism. He believed that the statement, “the will of the majority is always correct” was completely wrong. He argued that the goal of government should be to secure freedom, equality, and justice for all. In his philosophy the will of the majority would hinder the will of the minority, and that the will of all was much more
To prevent repetitive “state of war”, Locke claims the “social contract”. This is when human being is giving to government their consented natural right to protect themselves. Thus societies constitute the government and the government are protecting people with
This difference of opinion flows through to their views on social contract and this essay will discuss this difference in theory as Locke is of the belief that government is necessary in order to preserve natural law, and on the contrary, Hobbes sees government as necessary in order to control natural law. Both Hobbes and Locke theorise that as the laws of nature do not afford sufficient security everyone has to rely on their own mental and physical strength to defend themselves so they enter into a social contract whereby an agreement by individuals results in the formation of the state or of organized society. The prime motive for the social contract is the desire for protection, but it does entail the surrendering of some or all personal liberties. Whilst Hobbes and Locke differ on different aspects of natural law and social contract, both agree that mutual consent through social contract
In this paper I will critically evaluate the social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau and attempt to explain why we will always obey the social contract and why it is important that we continue to do so. SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY Social contract theory is a branch of political philosophy which examines the foundations on which the legitimacy of political authority is built (Lessnoff 1990). The fundamental premise of social contract relied upon by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau is that political authority, political legitimacy and political obligations are derived from the consent of those who create a government (the people), and those who operate it through some form of quasi-consent (majoritarianism) (Riley 1982). It requires a mutual transferring of right in which people relinquish their freedom by allowing others to make choices that will benefit society in general. This notion can be found in the literature of the theorists.
People once thought that the greatest obstacles to individual freedom and equality were political. They believed they could preserve freedom simply by changing the form of government from a monarchy to a republic. They claimed that the government that governs least governs the best. But in time, many persons became convinced that some government regulations of society and the economy were necessary to preserve personal freedom and equality, as well as to improve the welfare of the nation. In today’s democracies, the government plays an active role in removing inequalities and promoting freedom for all.
John Locke, who is often credited as the father of human rights and liberalism, maintained that humans were free and equal, and that the ideal society was based on a social contract between the humans and those who governed. He basically employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed and that individuals had an essential right to life, liberty and property. As we mentioned in class, Thomas Hobbes was the one who started the theory of social contract and developed it elaborately arguing for unlimited authority in a ruler. The intellectual journey of liberalism kept going beyond John Locke with the Enlightenment, a period in the 18th century that shows intellectual penetration that questioned old traditions and influenced monarchies. Some other documents asserting individual rights include 1689 the English Bill of Rights, 1789 the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen and 1791 the US Constitution and Bill of Rights that all are written precursors to today’s human rights documents.
Prior to Iris Young’s “Global Challenges” issues were viewed from a perspective which she calls the Liability Model. The Liability Model is based on viewing situations from a traditional legal perspective. A widely accepted view was that the scope of obligations of justice was defined by membership in a common political community. In “The Law of Peoples” Rawls says that principles of justice as fairness mutually oblige member of distinct societies to one another, yet do not apply to the moral relationships among people between societies across the globe. Charles Bietz challenged this belief in his work”Political Theory and International Relations” by arguing that there exists an international society even in the absence of a comprehensive political constitution to regulate it (Young 162).