Book Discussion

Book Discussion

State of nature, according to Hobbes, is the hypothetically existent conditions assumed in the society due to an absence of a functional form of government. It is also consistent of criminal coalitions as a handful of people rise while individuals focus on self-interests.  It is inefficient, self-defeating, and a war against all.  In fact, it is at the core of the natural rights philosophy.

Hobbes imagined life in a state of nature to be inhospitable. It will be characterized by eternal conflict, fear, and barbarism. Life will be nasty, short, poor, and solitary. To get out of such state, Hobbes suggested two ways. First, there is a need for enactment of applicable rules that demand cooperation and recommends punishment for wrongdoers (Rogers et al., 2013). Second, a law enforcement agency should be formed to ensure that people obey the rules. Such rules will require people to give up their freedom to murder, attack and steal from others. Stability and peace will replace such freedom.

Contractarianism implies that people should adhere to the rules and regulations put in place by the government authorities in a similar manner that parties to a contract honor their obligations and the terms of the contract. The distinction between the two situations is that the agreement of people with the stateless explicit than tacit (Darwall, 2012). Generation of justice principles is via an idealized contract were the people agree unconditionally and arrogantly to unbiased and fair choices.

Contractarianism is an attractive moral theory because it explains the morality objectivity. There is no need for a contractarian to picture the eternal truth of moral rules. In fact, human nature tailors moral rules as rational choice outcomes.

            People have all consented to abide by social contract because they express their tacit consent silently and do not oppose the state. It is an issue for the theory of social contract because of lacking formal consent. The non-viability of the theory is, therefore, evident, especially for the individuals that speak out against it. 

“The fool” agrees that it is unjust to break promises. However, he cares less if his actions are unjust or not. “The fool” concentrates mainly on personal self-interest, keeping promises only for his own good. Acting immorally is rational to the fool, hence presenting a problem to the social contract theory. To solve such a problem, Hobbes is convinced that it will never be irrational to exhibit an unjust behavior, especially in a society that maintains order (Rogers et al., 2013). In this society, there are reliable and credible threats against breaking rules that are mutually beneficial.

References

Darwall, S. L. (2012). Contractarianism/contractualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Print.

Rogers, G. J., & Sorell, T. (Eds.). (2013). Hobbes and History. London:  Routledge. Print.