The state is a
morally and politically fundamental entity and deserves the allegiance of its citizens. However, man is born free and it is within his
capability to make laws best suited to him. Does that allow a man to reject the
existing laws formulated by the state or does it mean that he should put full
trust in state’s decisions? Since state of nature is unfeasible, the purpose of
politics is to restore freedom so that one may live freely and peacefully together
in a society where individuals hold some responsibility towards the state.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau believes
that we are gifted with freedom and quality by nature but our nature has been
corrupted by greed,
competition, vanity, inequality, and vice. To overcome this, we must follow democratic
principles that would prove beneficial for us, both individually and
collectively. Gauthier, however, believes that rationality alone convinces
people not only to agree to cooperate, but to abide by the rules laid through
mutual understandings.
Nevertheless,
“In truth, laws are always useful to those with possessions and harmful to
those who have nothing; from which it follows that the social state is
advantageous to men only when all possess something and none has too much.”(Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract). Humans are ever hungry beasts, always in search of resources and power.
I, therefore, doubt that social contract theory would ever work in the real
world.
2 comments:
I agree with you that humans are always in quest for more power - however, doesn't this make the presence of a social contract theory more important? Without such a contract people would trample over each other in the search for power. A social contract would help regulate the society and would provide a basic guideline for life.
But social contracts do exist, as can be seen by their explicit representation in state constitutions.
Post a Comment