The social contract theory, discussed by
Plato, Locke, and Hobbes, is crucial to the survival and maintenance of
societies, but one of its side affects is to create a division between the
public and private self. Strict
adherence to the social contract is required for every member of a society, and
“if anyone presume to violate the laws of public justice and equity… his
presumption is to be checked by the fear of punishment (Locke).” Even those who do not necessarily agree with
the society or the way a society works must display their devotion to it
publicly.
It is impossible, however, to convince a
man to believe a principle that is forced upon him for, as Locke argues, man “cannot
be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force.” Because of this, he may stay separate from
the person he shows to the public; the society to which he must conform. Even when the social contract is not
negative, people can chose to keep their own private ideals while still
adhering to the social norm in the face of others.
Hobbes’ ideal world was one where the
social contract would be a set of laws and regulations that would be simple and
instinctive to follow. When each man
obeys the laws and is essentially equal with those around him, he naturally
aspires to become better than others. “From this equality of ability ariseth
equality of hope in the attaining of our ends (Hobbes).” If he wishes to remain a part of the society,
he must continue to outwardly respect the social contract, while working
quietly for his own good at the same time.
Plato argues that he will not change his
beliefs because of an opportunity presented to him, even though adapting to see
the good in a different point of view would save his life.
He holds
strongly to his faith in the contract theory, and even when “this fortune has come
upon me, I cannot put away the reasons which I have before given: the
principles which I have hitherto honored and revered I still honor (Plato).” He certainly wishes to live, but at the same time believes that
the sacrifice of his own life will push his society closer to perfection.
When an individual gives himself to a social contract, he is expected to live in a way that adheres to that contract, both in his beliefs and in his actions. You touched on this some in your paragraph on Locke, but what happens when an individual does not fully believe in the social contract? He could leave town in search of a society that fits his personal believe set, but surely this does not happen in every case. This means that there are individuals in societies who, like you wrote in your Locke paragraph, only live out their social contract as a facade, when really they hold beliefs that go against that contract.
ReplyDeleteThis is an imminent feature to the social contract theory, but in what ways does this affect a society? Does it hurt a society to have individuals acting a certain "ideal" way, even if they do not believe it? Plato would agree yes, because it would be utter hypocrisy. What do you guys think?
Isaac, does adhering to a social contract involve believing accordingly, or just acting accordingly? You suggest that an individual can secretly defy a social contract by holding beliefs that go against it, but would you disagree that maintaining the public and social requirements, through action and speech, is enough to adhere to a contract, and that a person should be able to believe whatever he pleases on a personal level as long as his thoughts don't lead him to break the rules of the society? I would say that this right to personal opinion should apply to both state and church, because all that an organization requires is for the individual to abstain from breaking the rules predetermined by the group, so even in a church where the purpose of the congregation is faith the only important thing is to display the proper behavior or actions required by the group.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA totally legit point Caleb. All a contract needs, in theory, is for its followers to obey the rules on an outward sense, not necessarily on an inward sense. Personal beliefs mean nothing if those followers are still living in accordance with the contract. However, what I was trying to hone in on was the moral conflict that living an ambiguous life such as this would trigger. Would there be any outward effects from this conflicting living? If there aren't any outward effects, what would be the personal effects? Do we really want our citizens faking happiness?
ReplyDeleteI think that ideally an individual who doesn't agree with the social contract in which he lives should remove himself from the organization which requires the contract. If it proves impossible for the individual to escape his situation, the only alternative left for him is to work towards altering the contract so that it may become satisfactory by aligning with his ideals. Hopefully he has a means of changing the social contract without breaking it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with that. It seems like if a society is trying to achieve an ideal state, there should be no room for these inner qualms over a social contract.
ReplyDeleteWhat if the social contract only tells you what not to do, but does not tell you what you should do. Your public self obeys certain restrictions that it has agreed to obey because of the contract. Your private self, however, is free to act and satisfy itself inside the boundaries of the contract. In this case you need a private self as the compliment to the public self. That private self is your true, "natural" self perhaps.
ReplyDelete