|
I am struggeling a little bit in one of my classes. I am so lost when we talk of the social contract.. can someone please explain to me what it is? I don't want alot of internet research done because I tried that, I just want your words. Thanks! :-D
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Work & School category?
Maybe give some free advice about: School?
OK this is what I remember, really briefly, about John Locke and social contracts.
His "social contract" argues that people have a right to rebel against tyranny, because people contract with one another to form whatever type of government - so they can abolish or reform it as they wish.
And...that's about it. That's all I can do without looking it up. I hope that's what you wanted.
]
Ok, first this isn't an actual contract, its not something that anyone has specifically agreed to. So in another sense, think of it as an 'unspoken agreement' between a group of people and the individuals in a group.
Lets say you and 4 friends go out clubbing together, and all 4 of you are single and looking for peeps to hook up with. In this situation, it would be logical that it might be expected, or implied, that none of the 4 people compete for the same person, or to actively backstab each other...that would be detrimental to the group; that person(s) doing such an anti-social thing would quite possibly be ostracized and booted out of your group. None of you have to even discuss this, its an expectation, its implied in a way by the nature of the group. It would be illogical to form a group specifically to compete and make each other miserable, you could do this easily as individuals with no group at all.
These convenient 'contracts' between people are meant for everyones benefit. As such, people limit themselves, put restrictions on themselves, for the good of the group/society. I could go against some of our own social contracts (like stealing from others), but if I am caught I run the risk of being punished or expelled from society after a fashion. Also, this has been used to guarantee, and argue for, individual rights. So if people feel that religious persecution is bad to the people as a whole, it could be expected that people will themselves not persecute others...even going so far as to enact legislation to ensure religious freedoms.
Of course the idea of social contracts, or rather what they are in a specific instance and time, is fluid...what we might think of as a social contract might be different than people 100 years ago.
As this applies to Locke specifically, this also ties in with the legitimicy of a given government. A government needs the consent of the people to be seen as a legitimate government, and as such the people would expect their goverment to protect and ensure their rights, indirectly or directly supporting the social contract of the people (with laws, freedoms and rights for example). This ties the gov't into the idea of a social contract, by involving governments with the individual rights and freedoms of individuals. Locke argues that if a gov't DIDN'T take into acct what is best for society and the rights of the people, and ignores a social contract (such as a dictator imposing his regime on the people and ruling with a heavy hand, with little or no concern for the people), that the people then have the right to rebel against the government and overthrow it. (remember this was in a time when revolution was NOT seen as a good thing, and was seen as traitorous by many. One could argue that Great Britain failed in this sense with the United States, and that the young Americans felt they had the right to rebel as GB ignored the Americans rights and freedoms)
This is a quick and dirty answer though, and Locke wasn't even close to being the only one with a finger in the Social Contract pie. Hope this helps in some way.
]
More Questions: |