Plato's concept of the guardians who decide the structure and operation of a given society was, while appealing, not entirely plausible. The idea of a group of philosophers sitting atop some mountain, isolated from the society they were governing, was somewhat preposterous, since they would have had no way of knowing what the best course of action was for the common man. the entire idea of the guardians hinges upon the idea that there is some higher truth that, no matter what your disposition, you will accept and allow it to rule your life.
The idea of a social contract starts with the lockean "state of Nature," where each person does what the wish, when they wish, despite what it may do to other human beings. the only way to escape this is to enter a social contract, which "produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked [Rousseau, 177]." A social contract is meant to elevate people out of the state of nature by giving them laws and limitations in exchange for the protection they receive from the integration into a collective. The power of a social contract lies in its formation, when "Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole [Rousseau, 175]." With each member of the contract placing their own liberties and power into the society, they will do everything in their power to keep the society afloat, so as to protect their investment. This investment ensures loyalty to the state, since those who are truly enveloped in the contract will, under no circumstances act against it, lest they damage the part of themselves that they placed in it. Thus the legitimacy of the social contract theory stems from the fact that, for the most part, human beings are not self-destructive, and the state is given value from what people have sacrificed to create it.
Great job, Pippin!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about Plato's Guardians. It is impossible for a ruler, or a group of rulers for that matter, to understand the needs of the people if they are not part of the people. What I believe is best about Locke and Rousseau's theories is that EVERYONE in a society have a part of, and are responsible for that part, that society. In other words, the social contract. I do believe, however, that Plato has a social contract-- regardless how impractical. The people in his republic presumably make an agreement that they will follow the laws laid down by the Guardians. Without that, there can be no society.
Do you all think that we need a social contract to develop a society?
This is really well said and stated Pippin! Good work!
ReplyDeleteI do in fact believe that a government cannot properly function without some sort of social contract. People are expected to follow laws, and in return the government provides the citizens with protection and security. If we did not have this social contract we would be in a “state of nature”, as Locke calls it, and if we lived in that state no one would be protected from individuals preforming unjust deeds to others, and we wouldn’t have any of the same morals to live by. I also agree with Pippin about Plato’s Guardian’s, and how not a single man can sit above the rest and rule down upon them, because he is out of touch with the issues that are happening amongst the citizens.
What I would like to know is how do monarchies function with the King being so distant from his people?
I guess my answer to Taylor's question would be that the benefit of the king's people and kingdom is directly beneficial to the king himself. While a kingdom still technically entails a social contract, the personal power that those joining must surrender is much larger than those in a democracy. Monarchies, though, can still function because there is the basic necessity of protection for the members, they just take more of the freedom of the subjects.
ReplyDeleteSo considering this, when do the terms of a social contract dictate that the society is a tyranny, or do tyrannies not even have a social contract?
I think that tyrannies do have a social contract, but the tyrant has full control over it. He is allowes to take as much freedom away from his people as he pleases. Does this infer that perhaps the tyrant persuaded his people with the social contract to start off with, but as he became more powerful it was thrown out the window?
ReplyDeleteLeah's having some trouble with blogger, but she's written this response:
ReplyDeletePippin, your post is really on point. And great conversation, guys.
My initial response to the post itself is this: What would Plato have to say about the Locke/Rousseau type of social contract? When each person has so much invested in the society, aren't they prone to want more? And are all men fit to have a say in legislation, even those who Plato might cast as shoemakers? Wouldn't a society based around a social contract be more prone to tyranny?
In regards to Pippin's last question, I agree with Taylor that tyrannies must at one time have had a social contract, if not only for the reason that most all societies (except for, debatably, Plato's just city) have a social contract. I believe that a tyranny forms from a society in which people believe that they can get even more out of the social contract if they do manipulate the trust of their community in certain ways, and those people become the tyrants. If this is true, then, wouldn't it support Plato's theory that non-philosophers don't really deserve such investment in their legislation?