Explain the various versions of social contract theory with supporting citations

Question

Explain the various versions of social contract theory with supporting citations to the textbook and online lectures in correct APA format. Use this APA Citation Helper as a convenient reference for properly citing resources. Explain some human rights that you think should be protected by the government. Discuss whether the particular rights you discuss are better understood as “positive” or “negative” rights and whether the rights discussed might be contemplated within social contract theory. Discussions of political beliefs can often generate a great deal of emotion. Your participation grade for all discussion assignments is based in part on your ability to respond to your peers in a respectful and mature fashion, and this assignment is no exception. You are encouraged to present the arguments in favor of your own views and to challenge the arguments made by your peers (in fact, the critical thinking method we discussed last week is an excellent guide for how to present an argument about the role of the government), but please do not engage in personal attacks or other inappropriate communication.

Explanation / Answer

philosophers believe that human beings are involved in “social contract,” i.e. an agreement among members of society to abide by a certain shared code of behavior in exchange for certain protections and privileges afforded by living in human society.  Instead, the social contract is simply the idea that we willingly enter into social and political relationships with one another and tacitly agree to give up some rights and freedoms in return for the protection afforded by organized society.

Locke's contractual theory of government outlines his ideal for a modern society. People had to willingly do things like pay taxes and serve in the military, but in return, the government had to listen to their desires and provide for their needs. Locke challenged the idea that a king was to rule unquestioned. Kings might still rule, but the people had a say in how they went about doing so. For Locke, governments were created to ensure that wealth and property were protected. In a primitive state of nature, this would be impossible. Dangerous competition would be the norm and a cooperative society could not exist.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote, 'Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.' What he meant was that many European kings and queens ruled unfairly. They took advantage of their subjects and made life difficult. In order to check the authority of these monarchs, ordinary people needed access to education. They could then defend themselves against abuses of power and maybe even participate in government.

Thomas hobbes, according to him man lived in State of nature and his life is full of fear and selfishness. Man has the natural desire for self preservation, security and order.

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered entitled: the right to life, liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equal treatment before the law, among others. These rights represent entitlements of the individual or groups vis-B-vis the government, as well as responsibilities of the individual and the government authorities.Such rights are ascribed "naturally," which means that they are not earned and cannot be denied on the basis of race, creed, ethnicity or gender. These rights are often advanced as legal rights and protected by the rule of law. However, they are distinct from and prior to law, and can be used as standards for formulating or criticizing both local and international law. It is typically thought that the conduct of governments and military forces must comply with these standards.

If people learned what a truly fair society should look like, they could take steps to make life better for everyone. Rousseau wanted to rewrite the contract. He believed that everyone could cooperate and that human nature was not as bad as Hobbes believed.

Human rights that i think should be enforced are Various "basic" rights that cannot be violated under any circumstances are set forth in international human rights documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The rights established by these documents include economic, social, cultural, political and civil rights.

POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE RIGHTS-

A negative right cannot be prohibited or compelled by another person. Freedom of speech is an example. No one can prohibit you from speaking your mind nor compel you to say something you do not want to. Negative rights are sometimes referred to as liberty rights. The founders of the US system of government viewed human rights in terms of “unalienable rights” associated with individual liberty and rooted in the traditions of natural law. The role of the government is simply to protect these liberty rights—to insure that governments and individuals do not infringe upon these fundamental rights. Under such a system, individuals are expected to flourish or fail based on their own merits.

Positive rights are those requiring an obligation or entitlement. For example, if you are arrested you have the right to an attorney and if you cannot afford it, one will be provided. In this case you are entitled to an attorney and the state is obliged to provide one if you cannot afford it. The idea of social and economic rights is an example of positive rights that have emerged more recently.
In contrast to negative rights, which are seen as already possessed by an individual and are simply in need of protection, positive rights are provided by the state. For example, the belief that people are entitled to certain resources, such as food, shelter, education, and healthcare, is consistent with a belief in positive rights. Under this view, the government exists in part to level the playing field by ensuring that all citizens have access to basic resources.

ACCORDING TO SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY-

Hobbes, Locke, and Rawls all envision some version of the “social contract,” in which humans imagine themselves as in a state of nature starting a society from scratch, and believe that we are inherently equal. The idea that we have inherent qualities that dictate the kinds of rights we should have within a political structure is consistent with natural law theory. On the other hand, despite the differences in their views, Plato and Aristotle seem to think that we are political beings and have different abilities by our very nature. None of these theories necessarily require social, economic, gender, and race hierarchies.

In the social contract view, rights are inherently negative, in that laws and government are in place in order to insure that I am able to seek and preserve property without being unduly threatened by others. It also prevents me from infringing upon the rights of others to do the same. Of course, we do not live in a country with laws and policies that only protect negative rights, in that we have all kinds of programs (welfare, public education, and Medicare, for example) that try and level the playing field while also fostering economic and personal flourishing for the community as a whole. However, these positive rights might be contemplated by Rawls insofar as he is concerned with fairness.

CONCLUSION-

According to my view,there is no doubt a need to strengthen weak states that lack the institutions necessary to protect and ensure human rights. Institutions such as independent judiciaries must be formed and executive power, including the police and military, must be brought under the rule of law. Similarly it must be recognized that there are two problems with solely relying on strengthened individual state action. First, it raises the specter of powerful state agents again capable of and perhaps willing to use and abuse state power to prolong their time in [*PG322]office. The wisdom of political philosophers who called for a balance of and restraints on power should not be forgotten because “the good old rule, sufficeth them, the simple plan, that they should take, who have the power, and they should keep who can.” The second problem is that even strong states are unable to deal unilaterally with all the challenges posed by globalization, especially when dealing with international crime, including terrorism. The amount of individual state strengthening that would be necessary to combat these problems would probably require an unacceptable retreat from basic human rights.

The alternative is to strengthen the weak states to enable them to protect human rights, while at the same time imposing increased international obligations on non-state actors through multilateral mechanisms. Thus, even though states will retain the primary responsibility for ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights, non-state actors will be held accountable when they undermine state efforts to do so or are complicit in violations undertaken by the state. Non-state actors have always had a pivotal role in developing the law of human rights; they now may take a further role as a result of globalization.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse E
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.