Critical analysis 2

Comparing Rawls and Hobbes Social Contract Theories Names Course Professor College August 2012 Rawls and Hobbes Social Contract Theories Preamble Both Hobbes and Rawls hold social contract theories based on the assumption that people are self-interested, rational and have similar needs, interests and capacities. Rawls theory in many ways contradicts Hobbes theory arguing that it raises “special problems” Hobbe’s ideology is designed in a disorganized social environment where self-preservation was unsteady at best. The foundation of Hobbes theory is based on maxim that there are only two ways for political order in a society, giving reference to his experiences and the society he lived in. the two ways were either there was attainment of absolute power or chaos. Rawl and many other theorists disagreed factually with Hobbe’s dichotomy. There is a notable sharp conflict between Hobbes' theory and Rawls' conception of human rights, the purpose of government, and the nature of the person (Hampton, 2003). A keen review at Hobbe’s establishes him as an ethical foundationalist and his doctrine is termed unacceptable comprehensive canon as far as Rawls' political liberalism is concerned. The Social Contract The social contract theory of state as expounded in the world of Rawl is like an allegory for selected values about humanity, society and the constituent elements of a just society, which exercises rightful political power. The contract proposed by Rawl presumes an ethical context founded on considered judgments, which are utilized to create the original position. Rawl states that the purpose of an original accord proposed to free the corned people to further their own interests accepting initial point of equality as defining the basic terms of their association in the ethics of justice for the basic arrangement of humanity (Rawls, 1971, p.27). In both Hobbes and Rawls theories, there appears to be some form of welfare. However, there is a gaping dissimilarity between the theories of Rawls and Hobbes because Hobbes supports totalitarian absolutist ruler while Rawl is a proponent of a liberal welfare state democratic system. Rawls vision for the government is to essentially create an enabling environment in governance that would maximize autonomy and promotes impartiality and efficiency (Rawl, 1971). This view is a stark contrast to Hobbe’s preposition, who argues that the purpose of the government is to solely prevent the dreaded war of all against all, which can only be done through an indefinite sovereign rule; this fallacy closely exemplifies the reverse of Rawls’ liberal model (Hibbert, 2010). These views are diverse yet each author gives them weight and depth of investigation so that they cannot just be written off. Rawl’s theory of autonomy and democracy cannot survive under the sovereign rule that Hobbe presupposes, there are myriad differing views and assumptions between Hobbes and Rawls. Rawls theory In Relation To Defeatism Hobbes theory, The best way to uncover the vast disparities commonly evident on Rawls theory as compared to Hobbe’s theory is to comprehend the relationship between the ethical, the factual and the political realms chiefly known as the rational and the reasonable (Rawl, 1971). Rawls believes that rational is non-moral issue whereby a person acts with vested interests in endeavor to achieve his goals in relation to the best available evidence and when doing this it may include immoral acts. The reasonable on the other note is a moral idea which involves moral sensibility(Rawl,1971).The reasonable is for Rawls “a moral idea involving moral sensibility” in this case, the reasonable individuals readily acknowledge when proposed by others the guidelines needed to specify what can be acknowledged by all as fair terms of cooperation. From the above overview, Rawls proposition was intended to derive the reasonable from the rational in the background of the original position. Generally, as far as Political Liberalism is concerned, Rawl opposes the supposition that one can derive the ethical from the factual and he claims that a person cannot originate the moral notion of the “reasonable” from the amoral notion of the purely rational(1971, p.31). In contrast to this view, Hobbe’s theory is deigned to derive the reasonable from the rational. It is evident that Hobbes believes that morality cannot exist before a contract, interpreting natural laws as norms, it is therefore impossible to have a relationship in moral domain between the sovereign and the populace (Rawl, 1971). The alteration from the amoral rationality to moral rationality applies only to the contracts among the populace, not with respect to the sovereign (Molesworth, 1966). It is debatable whether to choose a sovereign according to Hobbes description who believes that such move is rational for individuals. Rawl criticizes Hobbe’s for recreating the state of nature at another level co-existing between the sovereign and the people, pushing people in worse condition compared to the past. The way Hobbes describes the state of nature, makes people believe that the major reason people obey their contracts is the inherent fear for punishment (Dempsey, 2011). Rawl does not consider fear of punishment as a moral reason but rather he sees it as a prudential reason as it helps and individual to avoid pain and suffering. Given ...