Physiological (food, water)

1. Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs”Maslow, Abraham. “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review, 50: pp.370-96, (1943. Overall, the hierarchy of poltical needs corresponds roughly with the hierarchy of individual needs. More basic needs must be met before the ultimate need is met. Self-Actualization Esteem Love Safety Physiological (food, water)

2. The Social Contract Theory

3. State of Nature: According to Hobbes, this was the hypothetical condition of humanity prior to the formation of the state. For Hobbes, the state of nature is a logical abstraction, a device he employed to make his point. This stood in sharp contrast to the state, which, for Hobbes, was merely a useful arrangement that permits individuals to exchange goods and services in a secure environment.

4. What are the advantages of living in a state of nature? In sum, the advantages of living in a state of nature include: total freedom/power (i.e. absolute control over one’s own person and possessions) total equality total independence

5. French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” (1762): • In a state of nature, each man’s force and liberty are the primary instruments of his own maintenance….” • In a state of nature, each person possesses the absolute (unlimited) right to acquire everything that tempts them and to possess such acquisitions (i.e. possessions) they accumulated through the use of force.

6. “The Social Contract” by French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau presented an idealized image of the state of nature—one of peace and equality in which the whole of society agrees (through a social contract) to be governed by the general will of all the people. “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. He who believes himself the master of others does not escape more of a slave than they [because others may be the master of him]….[S]ince men cannot engender [create] new forces, but merely direct existing ones, [in the state of nature] they have no other means of maintaining themselves but to form by aggregation [joining together] a sum of forces that could gain the upper hand over the resistance…. In other words, the social contract is the natural result of the conditions of the state of nature.

7. Locke: “[Why does man], if he be [free] absolute lord of his person and possessions equal to the greatest and subject to nobody…subject himself to the control of another power?” It has to do with human nature as well as man’s unique and innate ability to reason. Challenged the “divine right theory of kingship” following the Glorious Revolution in England.

8. Human nature inner struggle between good and evil inner struggle between our concerns for others (compassion) and ourselves (self- interest) reason v. passion (which has the greater influence?)

9. The answer to Locke’s rhetorical question has to do with the disadvantages of living in a state of nature: uncertainty property constantly exposed to invasion of others unsafe insecure full of fears (continuous dangers) no established or settled known laws (i.e. no standards of right and wrong) no one could be forced to obey the laws of nature no known/impartial judge to decide controversies based on established law (passion, revenge prevents compromise) no power to enforce decisions or sentences

10. Locke’s conception of rights

11. Social Contract: An act of association whereby each party places their person and all their power in common (i.e. each party/associate loses their natural liberties while gaining conventional/civil liberties) under the supreme direction of the general will. The Social Contract is: a reciprocal agreement (the parties are mutually dependant on one another) a voluntary agreement a cooperative agreement (the sum of force requires the cooperation of many) an informal agreement a twofold agreement (the first decision to leave the state of nature and form a civil/ordered society through a social contract is unanimous; henceforth, everyone who leaves the state of nature tacitly agrees by the nature of the agreement to live according to the principle of majority rule).

12. Terms and conditions of the agreement: Each associate must alienate himself and all his rights to the entire community—otherwise, if some rights remained with private individuals (in the absence of any common superior who decides between private rights and public interest), each person would eventually claim to be their own judge in all things, since they are on some point their own judge—and the association would be hollow or tyrannical.

13. How does joining together give a particular group the upper hand? “their forces are directed by means of a single moving power and made to act in concert.” This social contract, which binds each party (associate) to a two-fold commitment, does not have to be formally declared because each member tacitly acknowledges the mutual dependence toward one another and, thus, accepts the private/public commitments such mutual dependence requires.

14. In short, the conditions of the state of nature require commitment/cooperation within/among and between individuals since this sum of forces cannot come into being without such cooperation. For example, each private individual citizen must fulfill their civil commitments and contribute toward the general will (i.e. participate in the sovereign authority); otherwise, w/o such commitments, there is no general will or sovereign authority. This reality means that each citizen is more likely to fulfill their civil commitments b/c he/she realizes that it’s the only way they can hope to protect their title/claim to their own civil liberties (i.e. I depend on you to protect my civil liberties and you depend on me to protect your). In short, a mutual personal dependence exists.

15. The general will can only protect each citizen’s title to their civil liberties if it is strong (this strength is dependant upon the fulfillment by each citizen of his/her civil commitments). One would be more likely to fulfill his/her private commitment as a member of the sovereign to private individuals b/c he/she knows that they are personally dependant on the other members of the sovereign to fulfill those same commitments as members of the sovereign to them.Likewise, one is more likely to fulfill his/her private commitment as a member of the sovereign (state) in contributing toward the general will in forcing others who refuse to obey it because that’s the only way their own personal/property rights can be protected (i.e. their own protection depends on the willingness/ability of others to do the same).If/when the general will is strong, members are more likely to subject themselves to the laws of the state that reflect the general will because they know that the general will can be directed toward compelling them to do so.

16. The fundamental problem of associating one’s self with others: Rousseau considered how someone could give up the absolute force and liberty they were born with while agreeing to be governed by the general will of all the people in the same association “without hurting [themselves] and without neglecting the care that [they owed themselves]”. In other words, how can each and every member or associate within this association formed be certain that their own persons/goods will be defended and protected by the common/combined force of the other associates? Is it even possible for each and every associate to unite with one another to protect the person and goods of all the other associates while still obeying only themselves and remaining as free as before?

17. The Solution: The Social Contract Like all contracts, the social contract has terms and conditions that mutually bind and benefit all the parties (individuals) involved in the agreement. The terms: “Each of us places his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and as one we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.” Think of the pledge: “…One nation, under God, indivisible,….” The clauses of the social contract require “the total [voluntary] alienation of each associate, together with all of his rights [enjoyed in the state of nature], to the entire community.” Otherwise, the association would not be “indivisible”.

18. This act of association “includes a reciprocal [mutually dependant] commitment between the public and private individuals” This act of association also involves a twofold commitment between the private individual citizens and the body politic : (1) as a member of the sovereign, they are committed to each private individual in the state, (2) as a member of the state, they are committed to the sovereign. This commitment alone is what gives force and direction to the general will—that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be forced to do so by the entire body. Under the contract, each associate (party to the agreement) loses the natural liberty they possess (limited and effected in the state of nature solely by the force and right of the individual involved) while becoming proprietary owner of their civil liberties ( i.e. they have positive title to these liberties that are limited only by the strength and determination of the general will to protect/respect them).

19. “At once, in place of the individual person of each contracting party, this act of association produces a moral and collective body composed of as many members as there are voices in the assembly, which receives from this same act its unity, its common self, its life and its will.” This “public” or “collective body” (union) is often referred to as a body politic, republic, state, sovereign, or power and its associates are referred to as citizens (members or participants in the sovereign authority), both as individuals and collectively (as people/subjects of the body as a whole).

20. What are the benefits of the social contract? The nature of the social contract is such that each party (associate) voluntarily enters into it—since each party voluntarily gave up their natural (personal) rights to their person/possessions to the entire community (the public) and without reservation, “the union is as perfect as possible, and no associate [member] has anything further to demand”. “[S]ince each person gives himself whole and entire, the condition is equal for everyone; and since the condition is equal for everyone, no one has an interest in making it burdensome for the others.”

21. John Locke