The Social Contract theory is the understand that an individual living in a state gives up certain natural rights and transferring those rights to the someone else (ie the state), with the understanding that everyone else has to give up the same natural rights. This contract is meant to ensure to stability and social welfare of the people. In John Locke’s Two Treaties of Government, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract and The Discourses they examine this social contract, but have different understands of the relationship with the state and the post perfect form of governance. The goal the social contract is to reaffirm the legitimacy of the state. In other words, to secure the power of the state over the
…show more content…
These are harsh words Rousseau uses to describe humanity. In his view man have nothing but contempt for each other and even worse have nothing but contempt for God. While man is indeed flawed, Rousseau proposes social contract that comprises of all men. Rousseau advocates for a collective grouping of all people and that this grouping our people is the sovereign. While naturally all of the people will have their own views and goals, it is up to one individual to carry out what is best for all people. The sovereign’s absolute authority on matters that concern the public leads into question how it is truly possible for to determine what is for the public good. Just like anyone who has their own views, the sovereign is going to naturally pursue his own beliefs and ambitions. Rousseau’s social contract is by no means a democracy; it is a strong monarchy. A Monarch utilizes the government to implement his absolute authority over the public domain. A government that is comprised of a great many people with their own views is going to naturally often be at odds with the monarch. These opposing views by the government could be viewed as a break in the social contract because the monarch has absolute authority over the public good, so, therefore people in government with opposing views could be punished by breaking the social
These are harsh words Rousseau uses to describe humanity. In his view man have nothing but contempt for each other and even worse have nothing but contempt for God. While man is indeed flawed, Rousseau proposes social contract that comprises of all men. Rousseau advocates for a collective grouping of all people and that this grouping our people is the sovereign. While naturally all of the people will have their own views and goals, it is up to one individual to carry out what is best for all people. The sovereign’s absolute authority on matters that concern the public leads into question how it is truly possible for to determine what is for the public good. Just like anyone who has their own views, the sovereign is going to naturally pursue his own beliefs and ambitions. Rousseau’s social contract is by no means a democracy; it is a strong monarchy. A Monarch utilizes the government to implement his absolute authority over the public domain. A government that is comprised of a great many people with their own views is going to naturally often be at odds with the monarch. These opposing views by the government could be viewed as a break in the social contract because the monarch has absolute authority over the public good, so, therefore people in government with opposing views could be punished by breaking the social