Without structure or discipline people live in "continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man (is) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Hobbes 5). Agreeing to a social contract allows people to live in peace and pursue happiness. As Locke says, "the commonwealth... (is) a society of men constituted only for procuring, preserving and advancing their own civil interests.” (Locke 1) It is a method of self-preservation and self-advancement. People coalesce into communities for mutual protection, but when they enter into the contract they must relinquish many of their freedoms to create the community's stability. This makes a division in the self between the private and the public innate in social contract theory. People have to put aside personal desires for the good and stability of their community.
Hobbes sees religion as a tool that rulers should use to prevent dissidence. Everyone is forced to publicly accept the same religion and God, but a ruler cannot control what people privately believe. Practicing a religion one does not believe creates a major division between the individual's private and public self.
Locke does not see religion as a tool for creating stability. He says that people should be allowed to practice whatever they believe privately. If individuals worship without conviction, they "add unto the number of (their) other sins those also of hypocrisy and contempt of His Divine Majesty" (Locke 1). Avoiding this hypocrisy helps reconcile the contracted individual's public and private selves.
Socrates has no division between his private and public selves. He acts publicly as he believes privately. Socrates publicly creates instability in his state by asking questions. He does this because he privately believes the citizens of Athens should search for the truth. When Socrates refuses to escape from his death sentence, it is because he believes on a public and private level that all of his state's decisions are good and right even if they are unjust. He says anyone who breaks "the covenants and agreements" is "wronging those you ought least to wrong... your country" (Plato 10). Unlike most individuals, Socrates's public self is never in discord with his private self.
(Esten)
ReplyDeleteNice Clara! Well written, and nice use of multiple quotes to defend your argument. This passage really got me thinking about the application of patriotism in a society. It seems to me that Locke and Hobbes argue that one does not need to necessarily love their society or even feel a great moral responsibility towards it. However, you made the point that Socrates acts publicly as he believes privately. Socrates is not only interested in the formation of a state for the sake of stability, but also because he believes in the evolution of man within a societal system. Although he knows Athens condemnation of him is wrong in essence, he refuses to flee out of respect for the state that has allowed him to become the man he is. My question follows as is, should we view our society purely as a personal safety net for us and our loved ones from the so called "State of War", or should we view it as something we have a moral responsibility to maintain; even at the cost of personal suffering?
Good point, Esten, and I really like your strong, clear argument Clara. Your question, Esten, reminds me of what Elise was talking about on wednesday. If you take the part about personal suffering to the next level, one is forced to consider whether or not it is just to make the ultimate sacrifice for one's society. It seems that Socrates indirectly does so when he chooses not to escape the prison in The Crito. I don't believe Hobbes would do the same, as he doesn't seem to believe in acting the same way privately as he does publicly.
ReplyDeleteI like that question, Esten. Do you think that having a moral obligation to sustain your community means you also have an obligation to stand by your leader? Hobbes and Locke both speak to the role the religion plays in society, and their views clearly reflect the events of their time. Hobbes argued that you could pacify a people with religion, but the English Civil War proved the opposite. People rose up to overthrow the religious monarchy. Locke insists on separation of church and state in his ideal society, but that could also lead to dissent. There could be a conflict of loyalty between the two, leading to a rebellion. Locke’s philosophy begs the question, who should people have the most loyalty to- their ruler (the sustainment of their society) or the head of their church (their eternal soul)? What do you guys think would be the most effective way to conciliate church and state? And to whom should the people’s loyalty belong?
ReplyDeleteI think the important difference here is that Locke tried to limit the power of the social contract and the state and thus tried to maximize the sphere of private freedom. This was Locke's theoretical attempt (which becomes reality in the American situation) to redraw the boundary between public obligation and private freedom.
ReplyDelete