Citizens By The Social Contract example essay topic

Different schools of thought have generated arguments since the beginning of civilization. They represent different perspectives of every part of life, whether its religion or politics. The realist school and the humanist perspectives offer people different views in many different aspects. The realist school is based on the thought that human nature is not perfectible.

Human nature is viewed as evil and something that cannot be trusted or counted on. In order to have a successful society the citizens need to be controlled by a strong sovereign government. This strong government would be the only thing able enough to control human nature and the evils it produces. If a strong central government did not exist a state of chaos would be created by the people of the land. One of the leading philosophers of the realist school was Thomas Hobbes. He elaborated on many of the concepts of realism.

Hobbes was a strong believer in the thought that human nature was evil. He believed that "only the unlimited power of a sovereign could contain human passions that disrupt the social order and threatened civilized life". Hobbes believed that human nature was a force that would lead to a constant state of war if it was not controlled. In his work the Leviathan, he laid out a secular political statement in which he stated the significance of absolutism. In Leviathan, Hobbes states that a state of war will ensue that will put every man against himself.

Eventually the state of war will lead the people towards peace and the only way to achieve the peace is through social contract. Hobbes continues further saying, social peace and civil unity are best achieved through the establishment of a commonwealth through a social contract. This social contract insists that a sovereign power be granted absolute power to protect the commonwealth. This sovereign power will be able to control the powers of human nature because its whole function is to protect the common man.

In Leviathan, Hobbes seems to underestimate the motives of mankind. His pessimistic view of human nature sheds no light on the goods that men do. While human nature may create a sense of personal survival, it does not imply that human nature will lead towards violent behavior. When left to provide for themselves, mankind will work toward a peace that benefits them all.

There will always be evil in the world which will disrupt the peace, but in the end the strength of men should triumph. Another philosopher with a realist background was Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau rejected the idea that any one person has a natural authority over all others. He believed that legitimate authority came from the traditions of mankind, not from nature. He was a loud critic of absolute monarchies. Rousseau believed that honest and true political authority could only come from a social contract agreed on by all citizens for their mutual preservation.

He believed that although each person has his own interests in preservation he will go along with the common will and aim for the common good. However, Rousseau states that all laws should be made in order to ensure liberty and equality to all people. In order for the social contract to work, the individual has to surrender his rights to the community as a whole, which will express what is best for the community. What is found to be best for the community will be decided by what plainly visible truth and common sense in an attempt to get rid of self-interest and unworthy motives. The true freedom given to citizens by the social contract comes from the notion that citizens will express complete obedience to the laws of the general will.

Rousseau's theory of a social contract contains good ideas, but would struggle because he, unlike Hobbes, overestimates human nature. The social contract would take 100% cooperation from all citizens. This is something would most likely never happen. If all personal interests where evaluated as valid or not by a second party, eventually people will no longer be willing to support it.

Rousseau states that breaking the social contract constitutes the death penalty. If people were put to death for pursuing personal interests, it would create great dissent against the contract and the people in charge of it. It may lead to a form of anarchy which does not do any good for anybody..