Although developed most extensively throughout the Age of Enlightenment, social contract theory truly traces back to civilization's roots, when the innate desire to unite into progressively larger groups of individuals followed the longing for order, peace, and progress. Within modern political philosophy, social contracts have been molded into models addressing the origin of the state and the legitimacy of its authority over individuals; their fundaments lie in the analysis of the human condition lacking any order in either society or politics, usually expanded upon to derive the purpose for the imposition of government and civil stability. It is differing views regarding such human “State of Nature” that draw boundaries between the works
…show more content…
In a rather pessimistic tone, Hobbes describes humans as being self-interested and bound to rationality by nature, withholding traits that would ultimately make life in a society lacking civil order “nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, Thomas, and J C. A. Gaskin). His cynical use of the adjective “short” in his description of the State of Nature follows from his conclusion that human selfishness and the striving for self-preservation, induced through the scarcity of and scramble for resources, inevitably set the stage for conflict between individuals attempting to maximize their welfare; what results is a perpetuating state of misery and war in which all members of a community fear to lose their lives to one another in the search for personal gain (Cottingham, John p. 631). It is through the acknowledging of innate human rationality that Hobbes justifies the presence of a remedy to the state of war, arguing that the harsh conditions under the rule of human nature would urge men to actually come together to institute civil order even at the expense of a portion of their individual freedom. Thus, Hobbes builds upon his State of Nature to justify the need of a state, detailing a system of interchanging …show more content…
The first of the two requests that all members agree to maintain peace amongst one another as long as it is exchanged reciprocally between them. Common laws that everyone must follow are formed, requiring of all abiding parties to renounce the natural rights they benefitted from in the State of Nature, namely the right to act with regard to personal gain regardless of implication or consequence, for the sake of security (Friend, Celeste). Once again, Hobbes’ skepticism rooted within his view of human nature arises, expressing doubt over how such an agreement would possibly be maintained indeterminately and faithfully; He argues that, if reliant only on the good will of all abiding members, the contract will not hold in the long term as a result of their selfish nature. He thus proposes the addition of a second component to his social contract: an overarching authoritative entity founded for the function of imposing the aforementioned social contract on the people and between them (Cottingham, John p. 635). In fact, it is through the very foundation of the sovereign that Hobbes believes society may finally be established; The creation of an “artificially and conventionally superior and more powerful” (Donald, James A.) entity that can order men to collaborate now draws a line between the State of Nature and civil
In a rather pessimistic tone, Hobbes describes humans as being self-interested and bound to rationality by nature, withholding traits that would ultimately make life in a society lacking civil order “nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, Thomas, and J C. A. Gaskin). His cynical use of the adjective “short” in his description of the State of Nature follows from his conclusion that human selfishness and the striving for self-preservation, induced through the scarcity of and scramble for resources, inevitably set the stage for conflict between individuals attempting to maximize their welfare; what results is a perpetuating state of misery and war in which all members of a community fear to lose their lives to one another in the search for personal gain (Cottingham, John p. 631). It is through the acknowledging of innate human rationality that Hobbes justifies the presence of a remedy to the state of war, arguing that the harsh conditions under the rule of human nature would urge men to actually come together to institute civil order even at the expense of a portion of their individual freedom. Thus, Hobbes builds upon his State of Nature to justify the need of a state, detailing a system of interchanging …show more content…
The first of the two requests that all members agree to maintain peace amongst one another as long as it is exchanged reciprocally between them. Common laws that everyone must follow are formed, requiring of all abiding parties to renounce the natural rights they benefitted from in the State of Nature, namely the right to act with regard to personal gain regardless of implication or consequence, for the sake of security (Friend, Celeste). Once again, Hobbes’ skepticism rooted within his view of human nature arises, expressing doubt over how such an agreement would possibly be maintained indeterminately and faithfully; He argues that, if reliant only on the good will of all abiding members, the contract will not hold in the long term as a result of their selfish nature. He thus proposes the addition of a second component to his social contract: an overarching authoritative entity founded for the function of imposing the aforementioned social contract on the people and between them (Cottingham, John p. 635). In fact, it is through the very foundation of the sovereign that Hobbes believes society may finally be established; The creation of an “artificially and conventionally superior and more powerful” (Donald, James A.) entity that can order men to collaborate now draws a line between the State of Nature and civil