I was researching on philosophies regarding man and the state, and social contract is the most prominent among them; in fact, most democracies are based on this theory. Three individuals stand out in theorizing this social contract – Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. This post will be a part of a series of musings on the social contract theory. This is an amateur attempt; there will be deficiencies and logical holes, and thus the series will be continuously evolving.

Social contract theory

is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society.

Now, read both links to get an appreciation of this theory, and then think about it in the context of the situation we are in.

Thomas Hobbes believes that man protects his own self-interests; that is, he acts in accordance to what man believes is to his own benefit. While this is not an ideal aspiration, it is realistic; the seemingly apathetic attitude that the silent majority in our midst is, to my opinion, based on this. What is in it for me, they might ask.

Now, Hobbes also believes that man is reasonable. Man uses his intellect to achieve his goals efficiently; he is willing to sacrifice something if it will be a mean to his end. This is something that all of us would do; and if you scratch my back, I will scratch yours.

These two beliefs establishes Hobbes theory on man’s political obligation to the State. To quote the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

According to Hobbes, the justification for political obligation is this: given that men are naturally self-interested, yet they are rational, they will choose to submit to the authority of a Sovereign in order to be able to live in a civil society, which is conducive to their own interests.

He justified the matter through the concept of the State of Nature. In this concept, man is free to do as he pleases, being exclusively interested in one’s self-interest. Since he thinks everyone is equal, this ends in a brutal stalemate; man lives in a fear that someone will supplant him in espousing their self-interests. Since resources are limited, it’s every one for himself. In short, this self-interest boils down to self-preservation. These conditions, says Hobbes, are intolerable; it is “the state of perpetual and unavoidable war”.

To escape this infinite loop, Hobbes says that man enters into a social contract, which has the following provisions:

1. Man renounces the rights that he has in the State of Nature
2. Man must choose from among his peers a person or a group of persons that will enforce this contract

When we say man renounces his rights, it doesn’t mean that he loses his rights; rather, his rights, under the contract, are subsumed to the best interest of the society. He has his rights, but it is in the context of what is the best for the society.

Also, when man enters in this contract, man agrees to live together with others under common laws. The State is given the means to enforce this contract and the common laws. And the pitfall of Hobbes thinking is in this: even if the State manages the affairs poorly, “we are never justified in resisting his power because it is the only thing which stands between us and what we most want to avoid, the State of Nature.”

(Pls. read Hobbes’ Leviathan, which you can read for free, from Project Gutenberg.)

When we read or hear the arguments of the silent majority, the seemingly common thought is that “rocking the boat”, challenging the status quo is against their self-interests. This thought is best exemplified by one epistolary writer (which I think began the epistolary battle) who wrote, “We are prepared to lose our freedoms and our rights just to move this country forward.” This line is pregnant with meaning, and I think it boils down to self-interest – in the context of the social contract, the silent majority believes that the country moving forward will be to their own interests, and thus when the State believes that individual rights should be limited, members of the society, being reasonable, will not object.

Also, by the argument that there is no justification in overthrowing the instrument of State, which is the Arroyo administration, all calls and efforts to overthrow it are violations of this social contract. The silent majority, perhaps unconsciously, espouses this thinking, therefore fulfilling their obligations as stipulated in the contract.

Let’s put Hobbes’ theory in context: most historians argue that Hobbes chose to justify the status quo of his times – the time of the English Civil War (1642-1648). He rejected the divine rights theory, and at the same time rejected the parliamentarian view that the Sovereign and the parliament shares powers. For a historical perspective, see here. By choosing to argue in this way, not only did Hobbes reject the two contending issues of his time, he also managed to retain a sense of status quo.

Now, what if the State is acting in violation of the social contract? John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau tried to answer this question. More on that on the next posts.