Who has a more plausible and logical social contract- Jean Rousseau (Yes) or Thomas Hobbes (No)?
Debate Rounds (1)
I did LD for four years, and I've been coaching for about 3 months. That was the last resolution I ever debated...and I'm willing to help you out. However, just for future reference, questions like this should be placed in the "Forums" section, not debate.
Social contract theory relies on a hypothetical model of the state of nature, or a condition in which there exists no government. Different ideas about how this model would function change philosophers" opinions of the extent of the social contract. Let me use the following analogy to explain. There is a peace tree somewhere in a field. It is the only peach tree or miles, and you and I are the only people in the vicinity. Both of us want peaches, and because there is no government to regulate access to the peach tree, both of us have equal claims to the peaches. Thomas Hobbes suggests that we would fight one another for the peaches. We both realize that because we cannot appeal to rights to solve the problem"both of us have nigh absolute freedom to do whatever we want"and we both don"t trust the other, because there is no outside coercive force preventing people from going back on their word. Moreover, if you are stronger than me, it would be easy to beat me up and take all the peaches for yourself. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, on the other hand, asserts that we would negotiate rather than fight. Why would we waste our strength and jeopardize our wellbeing, when we could haggle out a deal. Even if you are stronger than me, presumably you realize that there is always a risk of injury when it comes to physical violence. For instance, while you"re fighting me, you could slip, and twist your ankle, preventing you from walking for days on end. Thus, it is far more rational to just talk it out.
Hobbes"s point is that if the state of nature is truly that "nasty, brutish, and short," then people would be desperate to see it end. They would therefore be willing to surrender all of their rights to the sovereign"except their right to live"in order to bring order to the chaos. Rousseau argues that if the state of nature is characterized by negotiations over contentious issues, it is highly inefficient because every point must be debated, but it is not necessarily violent. Therefore, people would be less desperate to see order installed, and, consequently, would give up fewer rights to the sovereign.
If your goal is to prove that the state-of-nature is inherently good, check out David Gauthier, a contemporary social contractarian: http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Remember, there are a lot of philosophers who have come up with social contract theories: Plato (In Crito), Epicurus, Locke, Nozick, Rawls, Gauthier, etc. Don't limit yourself to Hobbes and Rousseau--look into all of these philosopher and find which theory supports you contentions best. I hope you have good luck in your debate career!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LtCmdrData 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: This should have been in the Forums... >:( Conduct to Pro. As for arguments, since this was NOT a debate, it's an impossible category to evaluate. No points there. Sources to Pro--there's a link. S/g to Pro too. Anywho, this was a sad case of noob-sniping...C'est la vie.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate