Hobbes reasoning for social contracts is that they are necessary to bring about order in society and a sense of morality. The idea is that the state of nature with natural man is anarchy, and therefore order and hierarchy are necessary for the protection of all. Social contracts are focused on the collective decision that individuals transfer their power to a higher authority that will bring about peace and unity as man alone is unable to that on his own accord.
I agree with Hobbes that there does need to be a trusted authority upon which individuals agree to transfer their power to bring about peace. However, my concern is when this sovereign authority is corrupt, such as those that fall under the title of dictatorship, like we see in the modern day example of North Korea. Or is it only corrupt in my eyes because my morality is being placed upon that of another sovereign power?
In the context of international relations, we see that each sovereign power, or nation, has a different definition of morality, based on their cultural context. Anarchy in international relations is the result of placing one sovereign powers' definition of morality on that of another sovereign power. There have been attempts in the international realm to create a power to combat the issue of anarchy in international relations with organizations such as the United Nations or the League of Nations. However, as discussed in our presentations for Week 1, most of these organizations are voluntary and all lack the absolute authority to completely govern the international stage, as nations opt out of membership or there is insufficient consequences and regulations.
Hi Jessica,
ReplyDeleteYou raise some interesting questions in your post. I do not think that the sovereign authority in North Korea is only corrupt in your eyes because your morality is placed under another leadership. When a leadership cannot prevent its citizens (that submitted themselves to it, however, not voluntary) from hunger and starvation, and on top of that kills its own citizens, then this is not just wrong in your eyes, but wrong in Hobbes' eyes, too.
People transfer their power to a higher authority because they want it to take care of them and, as you said, bring peace and unity. In the case of North Korea, the government does not do that. It does not bring peace and unity to the country. Not only did it never sign a peace treaty with South Korea and therefore is technically still at war with South Korea, but it also constantly provokes the international community with ballistic missile tests and nuclear bomb tests and therefore risks another war with South Korea and its allies.
Yes Christine, I agree completely but there is always the question of who gets to decide what is right and wrong. In the case of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un believes he has the best ability to govern his people and therefore killing them is sometimes necessary. To the foreigners perspective this is of course awful, but maybe not to Jong-Un. Therefore he might still think that his social contract is providing peace and unity.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe use of propaganda in North Korea has an interesting link to this post about sovereignty. From what I know, I think the propaganda in North Korea is so effective that the citizens believe that they are in the best country in the world, with the best economy and military. The state creates a narrative which leads the people to believe that outside of North Korea, the state of life is much worse (maybe even like the state of nature?). Would that mean that the people consent to the sovereign and enter into the social contract? Even if the consent is based on lies, does that nullify the social contract? While we may be able to see from the outside that North Korea is a horrendous dictatorship which denies human rights to it's citizens, those inside cannot see that.
ReplyDelete