Thursday, February 24, 2011

Post 5 - Political Philosophy

Friday, February 25th

Choose one of the following prompts to write on:

*Compare and contrast how Marx views the social contract and whether you can or should break it with Locke's view of the social contract. With whom do you agree more? Why?


*Explain what the social contract is in your own words. What do you think the responsibilities should be of the citizens and of the government under the social contract? Do you think our government is upholding it's responsibilities to its citizens? Offer an example to support your opinion.

19 comments:

LauraEB said...

The social contract is an unwritten agreement between the government and the people, spelling out what rights the government can take from them and give to them. That is how I see the social contract. Some of the rights the people may give up, are being checked at airports. If they can be checked, the government can be sure no terrorist is going to blow the plane up. However, it's taken too far when security gets in the person's space, and does a full body check. Generally I think the government is upholding it's part of keeping us safe. Not everyone always agrees with what the government wants, but would you rather be felt up or blown up?
If anything, the people are the one's who aren't upholding the social contract. It's like a child complaining that they don't want to go somewhere, America as a whole is unwilling to participate at times, whining about how they're rights are being invaded. Sometimes it's true, rights get invaded. Other times, people just need to suck it up and be glad they live in such a good country.

God said...

My personal definition of the social contract is kind of tricky. I think it is giving up certain freedoms that you possess so that you are guaranteed security. I think the citizens should abide by these laws, which are made from the freedoms that they give up. I believe the government should be there only to protect the people, but that is also my definition of protect. I believe that government should provide homes and at least halfway decent food so no one goes hungry and so that everyone is ensured a place to sleep. If housing and feeding the extremely poor means that a few rich people can no longer buy their 20th car, I think that sacrifice can be made.

キリン said...

The social contract is the agreement between the citizens and the government for the protection of the citizens from outside dangers. The responsibilities list out as follows; the government is responsible for the protection of the citizens and the provision of a stable society. The outside dangers involve any sort of danger that they do not bring upon themselves. Also, the government is responsible for being benevolent rulers treating all kindly.
In response, the citizens are responsible for upholding the government, supporting it in any way possible that does not conflict with their own rights, as well as providing fresh ideas and members to the government. All government officials were, at one point or another, regular citizens. For example, the government is in charge of creating facilities to protect their country from invasion. However, the citizens are in charge of staffing these facilities.

Sarah said...

Prompt 2.


The social contract is the agreement between a government and its people. It says that the people agree to submit to certain rules and regulations and possiblygive up some rights in order to receive benefits and other rights from their government.


I feel like in the big picture, our government is upholding its obligations to its citizens. We have freedom of speech, assembly, religion, ect. Our military is protecting us. We still get to elect our leaders and none of them have decided to use force to stay in power.

There are some smaller issues (ie.marriage equality,freedom of choice for abortion) that I feel like violate the social contract in (relative to other issues) small ways, but generally their end of the contract is upheld.

Maria said...

Social contract, to me, means that people give up rights for the better of all people. I feel like both the citizens and the government have a duty to play in this. The government needs to make sure these rights they're taking away benefit everyone, and not just what they want done for themselves. A 'veil of ignorance' type of situation. The citizens need to accept their role and support the government, if indeed the government is doing it for the greater good. I also feel like our government tries in some ways, but in others does not try. I feel like our government does so many things for their own benefit and to rise economically, rather than look out for normal people with normal problems. This especially relating to politicians who say all these things when they campaign, but when they're elected, they aren't living up to their promises because they want to earn favor among their peers.

Ian said...

Marx believes that you should not break the social contrast because he is a believer that over time the government that is capitalist can be replaced by socialism which would bring communism.Locke's view of the social contract theory is isn't as powerful as Marx's because Locke believes that it's okay for people making decisions to be in a different positions than the people that they are making decisions for.I agree with Marx more because you don't always get what you desire in life and that you in some circumstances you might have to give up somethings to gain somethings

Joshua said...

The social contract is when citizens give up certain freedoms for benefits from the government. The responsibilities of the citizens is to abide by the laws while the responsibilities of the government is to not abuse its power and to uphold the things it is enforcing. No, I don't believe that it is due to the fact the government is taking over things that it has no right to and because of it, we are paying taxes directly to china because the government chose something that the people didn't agree with or didn't choose. These days there ins't a social contract because you don't agree to give up freedoms, you are born into it. America may claim to be so great because it says we have the freedom of speech, but we were born with the ability to talk so what right do he other governments have to limit that.

Storm said...

The social contract is where people give up rights and freedoms for protection from the government in an unwritten contract. I think that the citizens should have the basic freedoms-life, health, speech, etc. and the government should gives us protection-police, army, navy, FBI, etc. I think it's doing it's best but could do a little better. For example, they should offer more protection against racism and prejudice because there is a lot of that going on right now in the US. They could also make the judicial system more efficient in that cases move along faster.

Seano said...

The social contract is usually a written agreement between the people of a country and that country's government. The people give some of there natural freedoms so the government can have power and influence and make the citizens lives better. Citizens should follow the rules that the government lays out, and the government should provide all the services that the citizens want. In the United States I think we have done a good job of keeping up with the balance between governmental powers and individual powers. We are still fairly stable today, being one of the world powers and one of the most sought after citizenships in the world. The problem we face now is overpopulation, because as our population grows, and unless some drastic measures are taken it will continue to grow, we face problems like overcrowding, homelessness, and poverty. We are not able to support everything that we have attemtped to do, and that is now coming to bite us in the behind more then ever.

Darby said...

Marx's view of the social contract is that everyone should work for the benefit of everyone else. That means that rather than having a wealthy class and an abused working class, everyone earns the same for the work that they do. This way, they won't just be working to get more for themselves.
Locke's view of the social contract is that everyone is born with natural rights, one of which being the right to deal with their own property as they see fit, and also that the government's role should be to protect those rights of their people.
I think Marx's view is far too idealistic. I like how he wants everything to be fair, but his idea of equality impedes on the rights that Locke presents, which I happen to agree with. I think Marx's view can and should be broken with the right to deal with your own personal property however you want to. If people work harder, they should be rewarded for their work. I don't think it's fair to hand everything out equally, no matter how much effort is put in. I definitely agree with Locke more.

CemeonCC said...

In my opinion the social contract is unspoken agreement between the government and it's citizens. The social contract consists of citizens giving up certain rights to have the protection of their government. I think that the Government has done good upholding their end of the social contact in America but not in some other countries were their citizens are constantly being killed by the government themselves.

Chelsea Campbell said...

A social contract is a compromise between the government and the governed on what the governed will be willing to give up for certain rights from the government.

It's a pretty fair trade where the citizens follow the laws their government puts into effect, and in return are ensured that their rights will be protected by those same laws.

For example, you give up the right to go on a shooting rampage in Target. Because of that, you'll know for a fact that there is very little chance of someone running into Target and shooting you. And even if someone were to do that, it's comforting to know that they will be punished for it by the government.

I think that the government is doing it's best to protect it's citizens, but I do think that we as Americans can do a better job of holding up our end of the deal.

Patric said...

2. The social contract is the nonphysical contract that citizens made with their government. It is when citizens give up some of their rights and freedom to have protection by the government. Since the contract is only a limited thing from some people's views and mine; the role of the citizens is that they should obey the laws that the government laid out for them.. At least until they have felt that maybe too many of their rights have been taken away. The government should protect it's people from outside harm and inner conflict too. They should be doing things that benefit the people rather then the people that work for it, and if they do not the social contract can be broken. I think that our government is holding on to their end of the deal with the social contract. We can't be as free, like having a speed limit of 45 on Old Shakapee, but there are cops to keep the streets safe. We lose our freedom to go as fast as we want, but in turn we have protection on the roads from criminals, drunk diving, and reckless driving. Pretty much almost everyone is holding to their ends of the social contract, except for the few people who drive a little bit higher then speed limit.

HELENA said...

The social contract is an agreement between the government and the people, in which the government organizes and protects the people in exchange for some of their rights. Citizens have the responsibility of cooperation, which includes following laws, paying taxes, and doing their jobs. The government must protect its people from domestic and foreign attack, provide aid for those in need, and maintain public works like roads. The government is upholding these responsibilities pretty well, which can be seen in the 48% approval rating of Obama, which is goodish I think. One example of the government doing its job well is in its attempt to protect citizens' health through public health care. The people have a responsibility to pay taxes, which is reciprocated through the safety of health care and other services.

Alexa said...

In the way I interpret his views, I cannot find an overall arching view on whether you should break the social contract or not. He seems to believe that the proletariat MUST break the social contract of society, as well as that they are constantly trying to (his belief that all of history is of class struggles) and eventually will (a spectre is haunting Europe). However, he would probably not want the bourgeoisie to break the social contract during the dictatorship of the proletariat phase. And in the final stage of communism, he believes that there is no government, and possibly no social contract?? I think that maybe Marx would take the stance that there is no real social contract currently, it is just the bourgeoisie FORCING the working class to obey THEIR rules created for their own gain, and that there was no decision to follow it. Similarly, during the dictatorship of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie are forced to follow rules. However, I think that the end state of communism may be somewhat like a social contract, because everybody in the society must agree to work together and be equal, and do what the must for the greater good of society. If you assume that there is a social contract currently, Locke and Marx both agree that you can break it, for Locke; if the government is not following the contract, and for Marx; if the working class is being oppressed. In a state of ideal communism that Marx talks about, I think he would be very against people breaking the social contract, of sorts, of the society (doing things like refusing to take a job that the society needs you to do), because it would prevent the non-capitalist economy from working. However, Locke would say that you could ALWAYS break the social contract if you feel the government is doing something unjust (forcing you to take a job you don't want). That is kind-of a very confusing answer to the question posed. Sigh. I think that I agree more with Locke (at least in how I explained/interpreted how Marx would feel about the social contract). I think that you should always be able to break the social contract, if you feel the government is not fulfilling the social contract. I think that that is often the only way to get your voice heard when you are the minority viewpoint.

karli said...

the social contract is the agreement between the government and it's citizens that the citizens are willing to give up some of their freedoms and rights in trade for protection from the government. The citizens should honor their contract and realize that they gave up these privilages so that they can receive something in return. The government also has to respect this contract by protecting it's people. if the social contract entitles more, then both sides should be following those guidelines. The citizens should allow the government to have the right to search your property with a search warrant if they suspect you have broken the law and you are a danger to society to keep everyone else safe. i think our government is doing more than is needed and entitled in our social contract. the government shouldn't control every aspect of our lives and if we want something changed or banned or allowed, we shouldn't have the government make it manditory to follow your specific views and opinions of what everyone should do. The government is doing a good job of protecting it's citizens for the most part, but the government should not overstep it's authority. For example, this is an extreme case but on the subject of abortion, i may think it is wrong but my single opinion should not control what everyone else does. by the government making abortion illegal they take away the opportunity to make your own decision on how you want to live your life. Whether you do or don't want children. in my opinion, if i see its wrong i should not do it personally but the government should not force everyone to live by one opinion without choice because my opinion may not be the same as my neighbor.

katie said...

The social contract is the idea that we should have a government which provides us with rights and in return, we must sacrifice some freedoms. I think the government ought to protect us from each other; there should be laws and law enforcement against murder, assault, and theft. We should be responsible enough not to commit these crimes and to have the prudence not to do harm to ourselves. Our government is doing the best it can upholding these responsibilities; however, I believe that there are rights unnecessarily taken from us. Police try to prevent things like murder and if they are unsuccessful, they try to incarcerate criminals to prevent more murder. On the other hand, some of our freedoms are unjustly usurped. For example, the TSA is infringing more and more on human rights as far as screening people for air travel goes. Feeling up a toddler to check if it is carrying liquids on board with it is neither just nor practical.

Westy said...

I definitely would agree with Marx's point of view on the social contract, because now a days we can see the problem with Locke's original idea. Marx disagreed with Locke in having one person making up the rules and regulations of a government, because that person would then have greater knowledge, and therefore a greater advantage then everyone else. There's always someone in government with a greater advantage. A quick example would be the recent leader of Egypt, stepping down because of the amount of power he was keeping for himself. I'm all for equality and sharing fair opportunities. Locke's social contract combined with Marx's veil of ignorance creates a fair playing field for everyone.

Robby Guerrero said...

I believe the social contract is the unwritten/unspoken contract between the people and their government. It is a trade off of freedoms and protections by the government. I think it is the citizens responsibility to help create a peaceful and successful society. They need to live life and not commit crimes. The government has the responsibility of protecting its citizens and creating a better life for the people. I believe the government is doing this job but there are flaws and bad spots. For example, health care should be, and is growing closer to being run by government. I think the state should provide health care and should help to keep its people healthy. Without this, many people are without care because of financial reasons or other problems.