As much as I agree with the concept that mutual agreement
must consist between members of a society to maintain a civilized lifestyle, I
disagree with some crucial points of two of the main social contract theories
highlighted in the reading.
Hobbes argues how humans are self-centered, and how even
universal feelings of love, affection, care, etc., are actually due to
self-interest. He denies that emotionality exists, and makes even the pure
parent-child relationship a subject of satisfying our own individual desires and
improving our own situations. He also says that to avoid harm to one’s own
self, a person may inflict harm on others, which will lead to a state of war if
not for the presence of a proper governing system. While it is true that a
person may inflict harm upon others in cases of self-defense, to assume that
every person will turn against everyone else is a little pessimistic and quite
non-realistic in my opinion, and makes Hobbes come off as an anti-social
person.
Locke’s views are even more objectionable. He believes that
a person gains right to a private property if he grows something on the land
with his labor, meaning that if a party ‘owns’ some property but fails to
perhaps grow food on it, any third party may come and grow something on the
first party’s soil, claiming that the land is now his, which is obviously preposterous.
2 comments:
I agree with your stand against Locke's views that it should not be the way of claiming possession over property. I personally think likewise, supporting my stance by the following.
How can we define utilization? What if a person legally owning a property is keeping it unused/uncultivated for the sake of maximizing his/her own utility, what if this person's utility lies in keeping the land unused and just letting the time pass for inflation to come into play or just letting the property gain monetary value over time and then selling it at a higher price gaining profit? Will in this time in which this property is unused make it a possession of someone else is he/she start utilizing it for a different interest (Let us say, agriculture)? So i disagree with Locke's too here.
As far as your opinion on Hobbes is concerned, i think i would not as much agree with you here. Hobbes presented a rationality and logic based approach to human behavior, he claimed every human being to be selfish, striving for the attainment of his/her self interests, and I think he is very much right in that. All humans are programmed in a way to always meet their wants, if a person is doing something for the happiness of someone else, this person finds utility in the happiness of the other person and by doing that he is first meeting his own interest by making the other person happy. So yes, if it happens that people start abusing these self-interests and start hurting others and using any means what so ever to attain their interests then we need surveillance, we need control, we need certain set of laws to prevent the actions which are costing other people.
I think Locke gets unduly criticized by both of you guys. So yes while he does say that labor on the land leads to ownership, he still recognizes that there are owners of land independent of workers. Of course, there is a lot on Locke that you guys haven't read, so I understand why several people have criticized him on this point. However, his views on property are considerably more complex than what has been presented here.
Post a Comment