Rizal/Socio-Political Thought

Lecture no.2 Social Contract Theories Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau

Hobbes: The Leviathan

Thomas Hobbes: The Leviathan

state of nature - before there were any governments - the

image of permanent warfare, everyman against every man.

Human beings need an all powerful state to protect them from themselves. In Leviathan, Hobbes ignored the concept of divine right and instead placed the source of government legitimacy squarely in humanitys hands

Thomas Hobbes: The Leviathan

Hobbes proposed a kind of dictatorship on the basis of the consent of the governed: I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man or this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defense. Hobbess notion of a covenant is precisely what is meant by a social contract: people freely agreeing with one another to be governed in a certain way. It is Leviathan, a giant of a state to which everyone should voluntarily submit for their own good.

Locke: The Second Treatise of Government

Locke: The Second Treatise of Government

State of Nature: Society without government was full of fears and continual dangers, exacerbated by the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men.
Locke contended that humans were born free. People owned their own lives and their own labor. As a result, everybody had a right to own whatever they could appropriate or take advantage of with their own labor, as long as they did not harm anyone else in the process. These were natural laws, Locke declared, discernible through reason.

Locke: The Second Treatise of Government

In Lockes terms, the individual has three possessions life, liberty and estate the individuals property. Government is created to preserve these natural rights and possessions -- People voluntarily establish a government by mutual agreement; in other words, on the basis of a social contract. Any government that pursues these basic purposes is legitimate, because it springs from natural laws. The powers of the state must be strictly limited and always subordinate to popular control.

Jean Jacques Rousseau: The Social Contract

Jean Jacques Rousseau: The Social Contract

The primitive man was thus a noble savage, peaceful and uncorrupted, free, healthy, honest and happy The Noble Savage is similar to a child. With the development of wider social interactions and an explicit division of labor came all the evils of advanced social life: greed, vanity, social inequality and aggression.

It is society that corrupts human beings and encourages evil tendencies

Jean Jacques Rousseau: The Social Contract

Social Contract was that government must be based on popular consent. In order for government to be truly legitimate, the people in each generation should have the option of accepting or rejecting it. Legitimacy is therefore based in a tacit social contract among free people who collectively constitute what Rousseau called the sovereign. It is the collective sovereign that is the ultimate source of law.

People are united in an organic body politic on the basis of the general will. The general will is the common good; it represents what is best for the community as a whole

Integrating the Social Contract

Is there consent from the governed? Issues on the legitimacy of the leaders need to be resolved to pave the way for genuine consent. If we are to give our consent, we would be squarely placing our trust on the ability of our leaders to govern us. In the absence of consent some of us have been indifferent or tolerant to those who govern us. Who do give our consent to? As a vacuum of leadership, are we forced to another choice of a lesser evil?

Integrating the Social Contract

Sovereignty from the people and the General Will

When will the people invoke their sovereignty in their social contract with our leaders? - EDSA 1 and 2 are instances wherein the people invoked their sovereignty. Looking at it from another perspective, when we invoked our sovereignty, would we be better off economically, politically and socially as a nation. At the end of the day As a people do we really know the value of our sovereignty?

Integrating the Social Contract

Contract between the government and the people Is it the people or the government who failed to fulfill their end of the contract?

As constituents do we tend to obligate our government to provide us with almost everything to the point that government is spreading itself thinly in the provision of basic goods and services.
On the governments side are they too consumed in pursuing their self interest that they have forgotten to function as a government that works for the people

Integrating the Social Contract

A working social contract is characterized by a mutual trust from both parties, that the deliverables would be responsively realized.
Once we enter into a contract, we are placing our trust in them, as such we must learn to discern more carefully and this can be seen in the way that we would be voting in the upcoming election.

Thank you