Introduction
In the broader picture of the world, the individual and society are inextricably linked within a closed value system. The dualism of the individual and society is expressed in the fact that society serves to maintain the individual, but the individual also serves to maintain society. Ethical philosophers of the Enlightenment sought to determine how these relationships lined up and what the state’s role in them was. It makes sense to analyze the thoughts of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau to give them a moral and ethical assessment. One may consider how their concepts of the social contract apply to the formation of each person’s psychological structure.
Thomas Hobbes’ Perspective
Overview
The philosophy of Thomas Hobbes has no illusions about human good qualities, and the thinker does not perceive a person as an initially beneficent being. According to Hobbes, people are initially vain and seek recognition for valor. This logically leads to the need for some people to dominate others to demand honor, respect, or even fear.
Hobbes calls the relations between people “the war of all against all”; individuals are not at peace but in constant confrontation (Olssen, 2021). Thus, a person’s life is impartial and cruel, suggesting a struggle for survival and prosperity against a hostile world. Alongside this pessimistic view, Hobbes proposes the idea of a contract between the individual and the state, called the social contract (Umeh, 2021). According to this logic, a person defends himself from the world’s hostility without restrictions, delegating part of his rights to the state, which undertakes to protect him.
Personal Opinion
In my opinion, Hobbes’s idea can only work in an ideal society, where the state becomes the guarantor of the protectorate. It is not uncommon that, along with this, a country exploits the powers given to it while, in parallel, depriving its citizens of their rights. Often, the trust of the people who make up society is used against them, and the state turns out to be the real enemy of the individual, constantly demanding power and domination. Of course, this is a portrait of the most corrupt and autocratic state, but it is still relevant in many countries. Injustice in society can cause multiple psychological traumas and act as a source of stress and depression for the individual.
John Locke’s Perspective
The theory of John Locke connects the democratic aspect to the problem of state and society, in which the will of the majority is seen as an expression of the natural order. Locke held that the rights to life, freedom, and private property are natural and inalienable, implying that the ideal state in his concept is not initially autocratic (Kanatli, 2021). For Locke, therefore, the most important thing is the preservation of human individuality and untouchability, which, in essence, should preserve humanity. This view presents a more optimistic ethical picture than Hobbes’s, in which individuals have their chosen place in society.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Perspective
A more positive view of humanity, inherent in John Locke, is even more strongly expressed by the representative of French education, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Nature, for him, is a natural state for man, so he proposes to raise children so that they stay as far away from cities as possible (Bishop, 2019). For Rousseau, the natural state of things implies innocence, which is subsequently erased by society through its conventions and hypocrisy. Through the conditionality of the social contract, a person is freed from society’s oppressive nature and can move towards the natural, primordial state of purity. This point of view seems closest to reality and aligns with my ethical criteria, as it demonstrates a person naturally predisposed to ethical progress.
Comparison and Personal Opinion
Hobbes’ vision has a certain power in that it calls for stoicism, but it remains too pessimistic and therefore capable of fostering vice. The Rousseauist point of view is close to mine, but its weakness, on the contrary, is excessive unrealism and weak applicability to complex realities. Therefore, in my opinion, Locke’s position occupies the golden mean between skepticism and excessive idealization of reality.
I believe the concept of initially positive, mutually supportive interaction between people as individuals should be given higher priority. This may apply to building trade relations and daily life, in which the idea of constant war and struggle seems excessively difficult and essentially immoral, harming society as a whole. If people saw themselves more as members of society rather than as isolated individuals, there would be less conflict between people, and the desire to dominate would be reduced to the principles of meritocracy.
Conclusion
Thus, people who want to achieve great honors do so by making an honest effort and improving their skills, not by being hostile towards others. From a psychological point of view, such a view of the social contract can be called holistic, encompassing most aspects of a person’s harmonious development. Such a concept of a social contract can regulate relationships among people, as they realize that they live the most complete life in parallel with the rest of the contract participants. The social contract must be perceived as a necessary restriction that allows a person to fully reveal their potential and to accept the features of one’s psyche, existentially embedded in the fabric of society.
References
Bishop, P. (2019). Rousseau and the Social Contract. In German Political Thought and the Discourse of Platonism: Finding the Way Out of the Cave (pp. 93-125).
Kanatli, M. (2021). Private property, freedom and order: Social contract theories from Hobbes to Rawls. Routledge India.
Olssen, M. (2021). Hobbes, God, and modern social contract theory. In Constructing Foucault’s ethics (pp. 187-219). Manchester University Press.
Umeh, G. F. (2021). The social contracts of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke: A comparative analysis. AMAMIHE Journal of Applied Philosophy, 19(2), 19-38.