Thursday, March 12, 2015

Views on Social Contracts

   A social contract is contract between the people of a community that has a certain list of rules each individual most follow.  There are consequence to breaking these rules and in agreement to following rules, each person has guarenteed protection.  John Locke and Thomas Hobbes agreed with eachother and believed that social contracts were necessary because it was something that made each person contract with each other person and it was between the people.  Also because it wwas an enforceable agreement that made people follow rules or there will be consequenses.  They both thought it was necessary for the people to limit some of their rights for the return of their guarenteed protection.  Although they agreed on social contract, they disagreed on their opinions of human nature.  Locke's veiw on human nature was that all people want to protect their lives happiness, health and possessions and everyone will help to protect others' property.  Locke's views are well more positive than Hobbes.  Hobbes believed that people were basically selfish, and would do anything to get what they wanted, which included jurting and killing eachother.  He had a strong opinion based around the idea that people would always act in their self interest, no matter how bad it hurt others.  Some people believe that humans are all good while others believe that they are all bad.
     It is harder than it seems to create a social contract that people will agree on and follow.  Everyone has different opinions on how people should live an might never agree.  But when social contracts are made and people want their protection of their property, they have to be wlling to give up their rights and agree to all the rules.  In class, we split into groups to make a social contract with five rules that our class would have to follow if we all formed a group after the zombie apocalypse killed off most of thw world.  Since we only got to write fie rules, we had to make sure they covered hunting, government, food, shelter, jobs, defending yourself and hurting others.  One rule was that three leaders will be elected every three years.  Another was that you can't be destructive to yourself or others and can only use defense if you are going to be harmed.  Our third rule was that everyone has to have a specific job and contribute or they will be kicked out of the group.  Another rule was that all recourses found have to be shared and everyone in the group can use them.  The fifth rule was that all conflicts are to be brought to court.  My group and I all agreed that these rules, for the most part, cover the majority of rules people need to follow to have a civil society.
     After the groups made their social contracts, everyone went around the room and stuck sticky notes around the posters asking questions about their rules.  They could be critisism or compliments, or a general question about the rule and what happens if they break it.  One question we were asked was "why are they (leaders) elected every three yeats?".  But, my group meant to imply that three leaders were choosen every one year, so that is one thing we would have changed. Someone else asked,  "who is the judge in court?", so my group would make it more specific and say that the people will vote on electing leaders and judges of court, along with other important leaderships.  One last question someone asked was, "what if it's a simple conflict?", so my group would clarifty that all conflicts will be brought to court if it is disturbing many people in the group.  If it's a conflict that can be solved outside of the group, that will be better for everyone else.  Even though my group agreed that our rules were good, there will always be people who will find loopholes and won't agree and that is why it is hard to make a social contract everyone will be willing to follow.

No comments:

Post a Comment