The Social Contract Theory is an agreement between the people and the government that the people will obey the government as long as the government serves in a capacity that protects the rights of the people and furthers the good for the general will. Before we consent, we exist in the state of nature. In the state of nature, we follow natural law. Natural law comes from God. Natural law gives us our natural rights, which we are promised because of our personhood. Natural rights are rights that we are born having, such as the right to live.
These rights cannot be taken away unless we choose to form a moral government that follows the Social Contract. Only governments that are moral can follow the Social Contract. The people become the Body …show more content…
Social order is the foundation for all other rights, but yet this does not come from nature, but from convention. He criticizes the Natural Law for being too independent, working towards one’s own gain over others, instead of the unified push for the good of the general will. Yet he promises a man retains his independent rights when joining the Body Politic, just as all men are said to do. However, when it comes to his “might does not equal right” arguments, we are led to believe that a person is born with rights, natural rights, that cannot be taken away simply because someone has established some sort of power dynamic. Might does not equal right and just because someone is stronger does not imply anything about their capability to rule. Again, this seems to be a critique of the law of nature, where the strongest are the ones fit to survive, which would follow Natural Law, but not the rules of the Social Contract. Obeying because one is forced to due to the “might” of a ruler is not the same as one obeying because of their moral obligation. Furthermore, he rejects the notion of “might makes right” for the reasoning that God chose the “mighty” to rule and therefore the ruler should be obeyed, as God is the source of the Natural Law, and that goes against the notions of the Social Contract. Natural Law is a point of contention for Rousseau, as he seems to change his opinion of believing it or not depending on which idea will better support his argument. However, he does establish that there was definitely something present for us in our state of nature that we found an equal in with the Social
These rights cannot be taken away unless we choose to form a moral government that follows the Social Contract. Only governments that are moral can follow the Social Contract. The people become the Body …show more content…
Social order is the foundation for all other rights, but yet this does not come from nature, but from convention. He criticizes the Natural Law for being too independent, working towards one’s own gain over others, instead of the unified push for the good of the general will. Yet he promises a man retains his independent rights when joining the Body Politic, just as all men are said to do. However, when it comes to his “might does not equal right” arguments, we are led to believe that a person is born with rights, natural rights, that cannot be taken away simply because someone has established some sort of power dynamic. Might does not equal right and just because someone is stronger does not imply anything about their capability to rule. Again, this seems to be a critique of the law of nature, where the strongest are the ones fit to survive, which would follow Natural Law, but not the rules of the Social Contract. Obeying because one is forced to due to the “might” of a ruler is not the same as one obeying because of their moral obligation. Furthermore, he rejects the notion of “might makes right” for the reasoning that God chose the “mighty” to rule and therefore the ruler should be obeyed, as God is the source of the Natural Law, and that goes against the notions of the Social Contract. Natural Law is a point of contention for Rousseau, as he seems to change his opinion of believing it or not depending on which idea will better support his argument. However, he does establish that there was definitely something present for us in our state of nature that we found an equal in with the Social