Philosophical Foundations of Social Contract and Ethical Theories
Social Contract Theories: Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau
Many authors of the 17th and 18th centuries, in order to explain that power was vested in the people, resorted to contract theories.
Thomas Hobbes: Absolute Power and the Social Contract
Thomas Hobbes believed that the absolute power of kings was based on the theory of the social contract. He thought that in a state of nature, man was the absolute master of himself. Humans are inherently selfish, fighting for their survival, even if it means passing over others. In this struggle, with no one to command, there is a situation of all against all, where only the strongest wins. Due to this, Hobbes thought it best to create a social contract by which men resign many of their rights, passing them to a sovereign person in exchange for living in peace. In addition, Hobbes believed that this transfer of rights is irreversible, and the ruler must exercise absolute power so that men do not change their idea of living in society.
John Locke: Limited Government and Natural Rights
John Locke believed that in the state of nature, men do not have unlimited power. Instead, all are limited because they all have the same rights. However, they have the right to punish those who attack their life or liberty, so everyone is a judge. But if each one takes justice into their own hands, it can produce a situation of uncertainty since no one knows what punishment another will impose. Therefore, a social compact is used by which individuals yield some of their rights and decide to join and live in society. This society will have rulers, but their rights are not absolute since they must respect the rights of man. Therefore, state intervention is minimized, and Locke proposed the division of powers into executive, legislative, and federal branches.
Rousseau: The General Will and Societal Transformation
Rousseau’s most important work was The Social Contract, in which he posited that there are great differences between modern humans and primitive humans. Primitive humans lived in a state of nature, where they were kind and had a free, quiet life. However, finding it difficult to continue living like this, they decided to make a social contract to bind to one another and live in society. Although social life is easier, it is also the source of many ills. In modern life, there is much competition and inequality. The solution is not to return to the state of nature, but to transform society by creating a state that seeks the general will—a will that wants the interest of everyone. This helps ensure that each individual obeys themselves so that men enjoy freedom, as they did in the state of nature.
Aristotle: Virtue, Reason, and Happiness
Aristotle advocated for a model in which he believed that all beings tend toward perfection. Good was the goal toward which all people strived. However, there is not a single good, but many. Aristotle also established a supreme good of life, which is happiness. Many believe that happiness is pleasure, others that it is wealth. However, Aristotle thought that each person is happy through their own activity. That is, the goal of each is based on the perfection of reason, as it is the quality that distinguishes humans from other beings. The perfection of reason, according to the best virtues, will lead to human excellence. Keep in mind that virtues lie in the middle ground between excess and deficiency. For example, generosity lies between greed and wastefulness. As only God is completely rational, man can only have limited happiness.
Epicurus: The Ethics of Pleasure
Epicurus lived at a time when the great Greek empire had disappeared, and therefore the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato had given way to others that were better suited to living in a tumultuous world. For Epicurus, the only thing that exists is matter (monism). He denied the existence of anything supernatural, thus opposing all myths, which in his opinion are only a source of unhappiness. As everything is matter, life ends with death. Therefore, his goal was to live as happily as possible during one’s existence, and this is achieved by seeking pleasure and shunning pain. To live this life, one must be guided by intelligence because if not done properly, it can lead to suffering. Boasting that needs are met, man reaches inner peace, or ataraxia.
Kant: Categorical Imperative and Moral Autonomy
For Kant, human reason has two areas of application: theoretical reason, which is concerned with knowing how things are, and practical reason, which is concerned with how human behavior should be. He believed that practical reason tells us how we should act, giving orders to our will in the form of constraints that may be of two types: “Do something that can be considered as universal” and “Treat society as an end.” Kant said it is important for our reason to give us orders because if not, rather than being autonomous, we would be heteronomous. This kind of ethics is called formal because he criticized other ethics that had been given earlier and were based only on material things. That is, they only considered that man was doing well when he achieved an end. This author, however, looked for something universal, valid for all, based on reason, not experience, because in this way, something valuable for everyone could not be established. That is, ethics should not state the objective pursued, nor what we should do, but only how we should act.