We continued discussing Hobbes. A main concern I have in presenting the concept of social contract is the idea that what makes the theory coherent is understanding the concept of rights as coming from the contract. In the conceptualization of the State of Nature everyone has all rights - to take anything - but even from others - in short, the State of Nature Hobbes describes is a dog eat dog anarchy where rights are meaningless. Then the contract is formed and everyone that is a member of the contract gets the rights as described in the contract. I point this out with regard to a person who buys a house. By contracting with the bank and municipal authority the person who pays successfully for the house gets the rights of ownership. We would all realize just how wrong it would be for someone else - homeless - to declare they also have a right to live in the house. That right is not given them by the contract. Apply this to citizenship and you have a way of understanding much of what seems confusing to many. Aliens do not have the rights of citizens. Slaves were property and not members of the contract - nor were women, children, and others not recognized as the sort of person Jefferson et al were thinking about. But as the nature of the contract changes others are admitted and the nature of the rights change. Notice how silly this makes it seem for someone to argue about the rights of women in China, for example. They are certainly not citizens of the US and so do not have the rights such membership gives a woman who is a US citizen. A person who thinks they do is just confused. Notice the question of whether or not women in China should have such rights is a totally different question!
Another different question concerns what the founders thought regarding the rights they described. It seems they clearly thought what they were describing were God given and so they may have understood all persons - whatever they may have considered worthy of the name - had those rights. But notice this requires acceptance of such an authority for that to be coherent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My favorite contractual right would have to be the right to live, as "guaranteed" by the constitution. But since that is an extremely obvious and unoriginal choice, I'll go with my right to free speech as outlined in the Bill of Rights. It wasn't until fairly recently in history that a man could say whatever he wants without fear of persecution (barring direct threats to the lives of others). Yet, I have difficulty imagining living in a time where a man could be tortured or killed for merely speaking ill of an authority figure. Men such as Galileo and Descartes had to hide their original and brilliant ideas for fear of persecution. Where would we be today if their writings and ideas hadn't found a way to survive. It makes me wonder how many spectacular innovations our species has missed out on because of a lack of social freedom...
ReplyDeleteIf I could add a right to the social contract, I would add the right to make love in public places (respectfully of course). I hate being confined to indoor arenas, and I think such a simple freedom would do wonders for our society. Sure there would be an adjustment period at first, but I think the benefits would outweigh the costs....