Group 2

In his Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke argues that a social contract is a, “society of men constituted only for the procuring, preserving, and advancing of their own civil interests.” (Locke, 1) Men agree to come together under a ruling power in order to increase their lands and prosperity, and for that reason give the government,  “the force and strength of all his subjects, in order to the punishment of those that violate any other man's rights.” (Locke, 1) The government was created to protect each man’s estate, meaning that its, “jurisdiction reaches only to these civil concernments.” Locke argues that a government’s, “power consists only in outward force” (1) and since no man, “can be compelled to the belief of anything by outward force,” (1) that when a ruling power oversteps its bounds and tries to force an agenda or certain beliefs upon its subjects, it creates a division between the public and the private of the self. A government cannot force a man to believe anything, so it should keep from attempting to influence its citizens beliefs in any way, instead it should focus on what it was created for: the protection of its subjects and their material possessions.

            Hobbes, on the other hand, believes that men enter social contracts not to increase their estate, but rather to achieve a secure and peaceful state. He argues that while men are in a natural state they have unlimited freedom, but “as long as every man holdeth this right, of doing anything he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of war.” (Hobbes, 7) Since man’s primary motivation is self-preservation, he will enter into a social contract and, “lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself,” (Hobbes, 7) in order to be granted safety and security. Since difference in ideals and beliefs can cause conflict and endanger the subjects of a ruling power, it should enforce a certain values in the interest of safety.

            Plato sees things differently. If one decides to remain in a society where the government forces certain beliefs or ideals upon its subjects, all the while having the “liberty to leave” (Crito, 9) and never arguing that its, “covenants appeared to you to be unfair,” (Crito 9), then one cannot break, “the covenants and agreements which you made at your leisure, not in any haste or under any compulsion or deception,” the moment he is found to be in violation of the social contract. Plato believes that if one voluntarily decides to enter into a social contract and then lives under this social contract, he should not, “run away and forsake his agreements,” (Crito, 9), but instead face the consequences of his actions.

           

           

 Sorry, I had internet problems for a while

Group 3!

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.

Group 1, Assignment 2 - Social Contract Theory

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.

Blog Post #2

This blog post must be completed no later than Wednesday and comments must be made by the end of Thursday of next week. The question: How does social contract theory (perhaps inadvertently) create a division in the self between the private and the public? Please use Plato, Hobbes, and Locke in your response.

Homework for Friday (9/14)

For Friday, please read the chapters from the Leviathan in dropbox. Think about this new articulation of the social contract. In what ways does the social contract proposed by Hobbes echo that of Plato? In what ways is it different? What does Hobbes believe about the nature of man?

Homework for Monday (9/10)

For Monday, please read the Discourses of the Buddha and Lao-Tzu (selections from the Tao Te Ching) in Dropbox. Think about how these articulated positions about the definition of the self contrast with those you have been thinking about in Plato's Republic.

Self-Mastery and the elements of the soul. Group #2

Plato’s belief of self-mastery is based in one’s ability to balance out the three pieces of the soul: the Appetitive element, the Rational calculating element, and the spirited element. To Plato, justice, both within the individual and within the larger entity of the city is precisely this balance. “He binds together all of these and, from having been many becomes entirely one, temperate and harmonious.” (443d9) Within the city, each branch of the society, the wage-makers, the guardians, and the ruling class, congruent to the three pieces of the soul, must also play its decided role to allow the entity to live harmoniously.

Plato tells us that through a balanced education, these elements of city and soul can be honed and shaped to create the perfect balance. Naturally however, the appetitive is overwhelming and primally dominant.  In an unbalanced individual the spirited element makes choices for the whole reliant solely on the whims of the appetitive, repressing the rational element.

When Plato sets up his perfect, just city, he also sets up his perfect, just man. The philosopher king becomes the rational element of the soul, able to wisely make decisions based on the needs of the whole, and overturn in lesser desires of lesser wage-making, appetitive elements.

In many ways, the entities of self and city share not only the same metaphorical forms, but are related through the actual citizen to society relationship. Plato establishes that a society reflects the balance of its citizens, and that citizens reflect the balance created by those around them. The degradation of the perfect society occurs as the appetitive instincts are indulged and run out of check. Plato presents the logical direction of decay as the harmony of the individual and city soul degrades over subsequent generations. The final step into tyranny is described as, “When the other appetites come buzzing around…they feed the drone make it grow as large as possible, and plant the sting of longing in it. Then this popular leader of the soul adopts madness as a bodyguard and is stung to frenzy. If it finds any beliefs or appetites in the man that are regarded as good or are still moved by shame, it destroys them and throws them out, until it has purged him of temperance and filled him with imported madness.”(573a3)

The only true way to be completely just or to take part in a perfectly just society is to create balance between the elements of your soul, one of temperance and harmony.