PHI2000-Assessment 3 Social and Political Ethics Essay

PHI2000-Assessment 3 Social and Political Ethics Essay

PHI2000-Assessment 3 Social and Political Ethics Essay

The social contract theory is as old as philosophy. Several theorists including Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau can be credited for the origin of this theory. It holds that individuals’ social and political obligations are based upon an agreement or a contract which acts to regulate their conduct, as they relate with one another as well as with their government. John Locke also has contributed to the growth and development of this theory. More recently, theorists from different schools of thought have developed new criticisms of the social contract theory. Specifically, feminists and race conscious individuals have all critiqued the social contract theory as being the incomplete elucidation of our morality and political viewpoint. The theory, they say, is grounded on class subjugation.

Security and Social Contract

Hobbes challenges us to think of life prevalent in primitive periods before the rise of civilization and the creation of governments. Life would be and was primitive, solitary, selfish, brutal and short. All of us would be on our own, gathering food and other necessities, without the protection of the police or even the law. The rule of law was not available during these times. These could prove to be a dangerous endeavor more so for the reason that life resources are scarce, and this causes a lot of competition for the limited resources (Myrdal, 2017). Nature has it that life can’t be peaceful and fulfilling without some regulation. It is on this basis that citizens donate some powers to the government to regulate human relations on behalf of the well-being of all citizens. Without law and order, human civilization cannot be sustainable. Good government is essential for any political authority that is founded on public interest. However, a limited government is not only based on good governance but also on the rule of law. This government is not above the law and hence refrained from pursuing some tasks that would violate the law. Social institutions must be free to undertake their particular tasks without unnecessary regulation. Safeguarding public morals and public policy should be the guiding light when governments are taking their functions including the provision of national security. The essential task of any regime is to make judgment according to the standards of justice. It is the fundamental and legitimate duty of the government to protect life and property. This includes the obligation to protect and promote fundamental freedoms and human rights.

Citizens also have a moral and legal duty to cooperate with each other. This is according to both John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  Also, they hold that people are obliged to respect the law and particularly the rights of others. Without these, the rule of the jungle and mob psychology would reign. It is through the respect for diversity and tolerance can societies nurture a harmonious relationship. However, this kind of society is hard to achieve. It is only aspirational. This society is communal, and no one owns property as it all belongs to the community. The wealthy and the elites have a duty to cater for the interests of the poor. This community is not capitalistic as there is no pay for the work done. There is no striving for private wealth and even dominion over the other members of the society. All people are equal and should strive to ensure social solidarity. This theory of social solidarity was also espoused by Plato in the Republic. According to Plato, those people rated lowly in the social hierarchy should serve the interests of the wealthy. This communism theory was further expounded by German philosopher Karl Marx. He condemned the capitalistic economy which he argued that it only acted to subjugate the weak to the will of the wealthy (Clark, 2017). He was of the opinion that an economy that favors the interests and the welfare of all including the rich. He was of the view that the global recognition and acceptance of communism was inevitable. He disliked a society founded on rigidity and materialism and not ethics, equality, and morality.

Law as Policy: An Assessment of the Seat Belt Law in Light of the Social Contract Theory

In the newly emerging and developing democracies, there are a lot of strategic tasks required on the side of the succeeding governments. These policies are necessary for the purpose of entrenching democratic process and liberalizing trade (Heywood, 2017). Law has never been valued neutral and hence solving social problems using the law becomes problematic. It is evident from the natural school of thought that law encompasses moral values, precisely justice and liberty. It is my argument that law and policy must be founded on human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Seat Belt Law

The question that seat belt law raises is whether it is legal, lawful and moral. The reason why these issues are relevant is the because of privacy rights, liberty, security and autonomy rights, which every human is entitled to. According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, rights and interests must be balanced to guarantee justice and utility. It is against this backdrop that seat belt law is legal more so to prevent traffic crimes. It is indisputable that motor vehicle drivers have privacy and autonomy rights, but the same must be weighed against the rights of other road users, who would be threatened by reckless driving. Public interest must be protected even in the face of personal rights.

In the light of seat belt law and social contract theory, it should be noted that citizens delegate part of their sovereign powers to their elected representatives (parliament and executive) as a way of seeking leadership and guidance (McMahon, 2017). The legislature is mandated to enact the seat belt laws while the executive, on the other hand, is required to enforce the formulated regulations. On the same note, the government has an obligation to protect life and dignity of all persons including the passengers. The failure to use the seat belt on the part of the passenger would act to threaten his own life in case of an accident, which the government is mandated to protect.

 On the other hand, the driver of a particular vehicle, more so the public one, has a duty to protect not only his life but also the life of the passengers on board as well as the pedestrians. It is in this sense that failure to wear a safety belt threatens many lives and therefore the government must come in and provide security on the roads courtesy of the social contract it has with the citizens. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who also popularized the social contract theory, was of the opinion that human beings must provide for the welfare of other citizens. This is relevant because the drivers particularly those working in the public sector must protect not only their rights but also those of the passengers and other road users. Seat belts are essential in this course.

The Problem of Political Obligation

A person’s obligation to act in some specified way is not an absolute moral claim of his actions. A duty to do something in a precise manner does not entail a conclusive and binding reason for doing so. On the same note, obligations do not supersede judgment and other moral considerations for acting. Human beings should always apply their mind when following a particular obligation (Shafer, 2014). In other words, duties and personal ethics must be balanced for individuals to realize their freedom. For example, if we agree to meet for a cup of tea. I understand that I have an obligation to honor the agreement. However, if on my way to breakfast venue I came across a child drowning in a pond, it is my moral duty to rescue the baby even if that might interfere with my breakfast schedule.

Conclusion

 The effect of an obligation to obey is that even if it is demonstrated that political obligations are present and that they do bind us to a particular government that does not mean that we must show allegiance to the government all the time. This would only act to encourage us to follow the law. However, if obeying the law means that a major harm will be realized, then civil disobedience, in this case, may be justified.  Consent of the sovereign must be sought before any action that might affect their interest is undertaken. In the circumstances, unjust laws cannot be regarded as moral laws.  

PHI2000-Assessment 3 Social and Political Ethics Essay

Social and Political Ethics