Three ideas of contractualism : the ones of Locke, Rousseau and Rawls

Résumé du document

“The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including the classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State” , noted the American anarcho-capitalist Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995). Indeed, what justifies the authority that the political institutions have over their citizens? What justifies the obedience of the population? And, what justifies a State? The questioning of the concept of a State is at the core of modern political discussions. While some States, such as the USRR, abruptly vanished in the XXth century or, others like Somalia, have been called “faint”, an aspiration for a State remains ever growing, as might be proven with the current developments in Kosovo. Indeed, the necessity of the State being asserted as early as in the XVth century by Niccolo Machiavelli, and since the XIXth century, the State has become a usual form of societal organization - natural, accepted and justified. With the development of market capitalism and the breakdown of feudalism, was seen the emergence of liberalism, a philosophy committed to individualism and rationality, that brought answers to the teeming questions about the State – its birth, its construction, its necessity and even its form. The question of legitimacy of a State, and hence its acceptance by the population, has conspicuously found an explanation in liberal social contract theories, which have attempted to elucidate, in a variety of ways, the rationale behind the erection of a legitimate state authority, and the consent of the governed to obey to the political obligation it induces. The social contract theories may be broadly divided into two main currents – contractarianism and contractualism. Contractarianism, based on the writings of Thomas Hobbes, is a social contract theory based on the self-interest of the governed. By concluding a contract with others, an individual, in his pursuit of happiness, seeks to maximize his own interest. Contractualism, derived from the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and equally present in John Locke and John Rawls works, has a radically different basis for the creation of a social contract – its rationality and justifiability.

Extraits

[...] It is only a breach of this contract that gives a Man the right to rebel. Rousseau sees the nature of the contract in a similar egalitarian or even holistic way, basing all rights and obligations on the “general will” not the sum of individual wills[36] but an “unalienable and indivisible” sovereign construction, in which those who do not conform “shall be forced to be free”[37]. This collective intelligence has non-egotistical basis, which may be challenged, like for Locke, only when social pact violated”[38]. [...]

[...] The novelty introduced by Rawls, is that the most profitable distribution of well-being might be equal or unequal: social values are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all of these values is to everyone's advantage”.[50] Rawls elaborates the basic contractualist notions of liberty, freedom and justice from simple applicability to all, to maximization of everyone's interest, independent of human abilities and prospects. Hence, it is not simply a utilitarian most amount of good for most people, but, more in Rousseau's manner, a certain distribution of benefits. Yet, three authors' divergences as to details of notions founding State's substance do not conceal an “umbrella” one that unifies three conceptions that of social unity consented to exist under a legitimate authority. B. [...]

[...] man] can preserve the rest of mankind”. (Locke, p.462) (Rousseau, p.519) (Rawls, p.1051) (Rawls, p. 1035) (Rousseau, p.523) “Since all the princes and rulers of independent governments, all throughout the world, are in a state of nature, it is plain that the world never was, nor ever will be, without numbers of men in that state”. (Locke, p.464) (Locke, p. 465) (Locke, p.462) (Locke, p.464) Idem Rousseau notes, “according to the axiom of the wise Locke, ‘There can be no injury, where there is no property” (Rousseau, p. [...]

[...] 527) (Rousseau, p.529) (Rousseau, p.530) (Rawls, p.1039) (Rawls, p.1053) (Locke, p.484) (Locke, p.483) (Rousseau, p. 539) (Rousseau, p. 536) (Rousseau, p.535) (Rawls, p. 104) (Locke, p.483) (Locke, p.485) (Rousseau, p.534) Idem (Rawls, p.1046) Idem (Rawls, p.1047) (Locke, p.481) One limit may be noted to this conception of equality when Locke notes that citizen's rights of participation may depend in a proportional way on property ownership. [...]

[...] The social contract theories may be broadly divided into two main currents contractarianism and contractualism. Contractarianism, based on the writings of Thomas Hobbes, is a social contract theory based on self-interest of the governed: by concluding a contract with others, an individual in his pursuit of happiness seeks to maximise his own interest. Contractualism, derived from the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and equally present in John Locke and John Rawls works, has a radically different basis for the creation of a social contract - rationality and justifiability of such. [...]