. Buch, Du Contrat social (1762; The social contract) to propose how they could regain their freedom in the future. Once again, Geneva was the model: not Geneva, as it had become in 1754, when Rousseau returned to regain its rights as a citizen, but Geneva as it had once been – that is, ,. Mills` central argument is that there is a “racial contract” that is even more fundamental to Western society than the social contract. This racial contract primarily determines who is considered a legal and political person in its own right, and thus defines the parameters of who can “unite” with the freedom and equality promised by the social contract. Some people, especially white men, are individuals in their own right according to the racial contract. As such, they have the right to conclude the statutes and certain legal contracts. They are considered fully human and therefore deserve equality and freedom. Their status as full-fledged persons gives them greater social power. In particular, it gives them the power to enter into contracts to be the subject of the contract, while other persons are denied such a privilege and are relegated to the status of contractual objects. . social contract, from 1762 (see Social Contract), in which it is maintained that the individual finds his true being and freedom only in submission to the “general will” of the community. At the beginning of the 19th century, the German philosopher G.W.F.
Hegel argued that the individual recognized his true essence and. Bearing in mind that the end of the “unification of peoples in common” (para. 124) the preservation of their wealth and the preservation of their life, liberty and well-being in general, Locke can easily imagine the conditions under which the pact with the government is destroyed and men have the right to oppose the authority of a civil government like a king. When the executive power of a government turns into tyranny, for example by the dissolution of the legislature and thus by the denial of the people`s ability to legislate for its own preservation, then the resulting tyrant enters into a state of nature and, in particular, a state of war with the people, and they then have the same right to self-defence as before the conclusion of a pact for the establishment of society in general. In other words, the justification for the authority of the executive component of government is the protection of the property and well-being of the people, so that if this protection no longer exists, or if the king becomes a tyrant and acts against the interests of the people, they have the right, if not a complete obligation, to oppose their authority. The social pact can be dissolved and the process of creating a political society can be revived. His social contract (1762) was banned, which gave shine to the proposals of a constitution that would allow the individual to develop without violating the principle of social equality. The crucial issue was legitimate authority. Rousseau rejected both natural law and violence as a basis. All political power, Rousseau said, must belong to the people and exercise their general will. There can be no separation of powers, as Montesquieu proposed. People who meet will discuss the laws individually and then find the general will through a majority vote.
Rousseau`s general will was later expressed by the words “We, the people. “. Incarnate. at the beginning of the United States Constitution. Hobbes` political theory is best understood when it consists of two parts: his theory of human motivation, psychological egoism, and his theory of the social contract, which is based on the hypothetical state of nature. Hobbes mainly has a particular theory of human nature that leads to a particular view of morality and politics as developed in his philosophical masterpiece Leviathan of 1651. The scientific revolution, with its important new discoveries that the universe can be both described and predicted in accordance with the universal laws of nature, greatly influenced Hobbes. He tried to provide a theory of human nature that would match the discoveries in the sciences of the inanimate universe. His psychological theory is thus shaped by the mechanism, the general opinion that everything in the universe is produced only by moving matter. According to Hobbes, this also extends to human behavior. Human macrobehavior can rightly be described as the effect of certain types of microhavior, even if some of these latter behaviors are invisible to us. Behaviors such as walking, talking and others are therefore themselves generated by other actions in us.
And these other actions are themselves caused by the interaction of our body with other bodies, human or otherwise, which create in us certain chains of causes and effects and ultimately lead to human behavior that we can clearly observe. According to this view, we, including all our actions and decisions, can then be explained in relation to the universal laws of nature as well as the movements of celestial bodies. The gradual decay of memory can be explained, for example, by inertia. As we are presented with more and more sensory information, the residue of previous impressions “slows down” over time. From Hobbes` point of view, we are essentially very complicated organic machines that respond mechanically and in accordance with the universal laws of human nature to the stimuli of the world. In his 1986 book Morals by Agreement, David Gauthier set out to renew Hobbes` moral and political philosophy. In this book, he firmly argues that Hobbes was right: we can understand both politics and morality as being based on an agreement between exclusively selfish but rational people. However, it improves Hobbes` argument by showing that we can establish morality without the sovereign`s external enforcement mechanism. Hobbes argued that people`s passions are so strong that cooperation between them is always in danger of collapsing, and that a sovereign is therefore needed to enforce the law. However, Gauthier believes that rationality alone convinces people not only to accept cooperation, but also to abide by their agreements. Hobbes believed that a government led by a king was the best form the sovereign could take.
Putting all power in the hands of a king would mean a more determined and consistent exercise of political authority, Hobbes argued. .