Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
Thomas Hobbes became convinced that the methods employed by mathematicians and scientists hold the
greatest promise for advances in human knowledge. Hobbes devoted much of his time to the development
and expression of a comprehensive philosophical vision of the mechanistic operation of nature.
The Leviathan (1651) is the most complete expression of Hobbes's philosophy. It begins with a clearly
materialistic account of human nature and knowledge, a rigidly deterministic account of human volition,
and a pessimistic vision of the consequently natural state of human beings in perpetual struggle against
each other. It is to escape this grim fate, Hobbes argued, that we form the commonwealth, surrendering
our individual powers to the authority of an absolute sovereign. For Hobbes, then, individual obedience to
even an arbitrary government is necessary in order to forestall the greater evil of an endless state of war.
For Hobbes, that conception is bound to be a mechanistic one: the movements of physical objects will
turn out to be sufficient to explain everything in the universe. The chief purpose of scientific
investigation, then, is to develop a geometrical account of the motion of bodies, which will reveal the
genuine basis of their causal interactions and the regularity of the natural world. Thus, Hobbes defended a
strictly materialist view of the world.
Human Nature
Human beings are physical objects, sophisticated machines all of whose functions and activities can be
described and explained in purely mechanistic terms. Even thought itself must be understood as an
instance of the physical operation of the human body. Sensation, for example, involves a series of
mechanical processes operating within the human nervous system, by which the sensible features of
material things produce ideas in the brains of the human beings who perceive them. (Leviathan I 1)
Human action is similarly to be explained - specific desires and appetites arise in the human body and
are experienced as discomforts or pains which must be overcome. Thus, each of us is motivated to act in
such ways as we believe likely to relieve our discomfort, to preserve and promote our own well-being.
(Leviathan I 6) Everything we choose to do is strictly determined by this natural inclination to relieve the
physical pressures that impinge upon our bodies. Human volition is nothing but the determination of the
will by the strongest present desire.
Hobbes nevertheless supposed that human agents are free in the sense that their activities are not under
constraint from anyone else. On this compatibilist view, we have no reason to complain about the strict
determination of the will so long as we are not subject to interference from outside ourselves. (Leviathan
II 21). As Hobbes acknowledged, this account of human nature emphasizes our animal nature, leaving
each of us to live independently of everyone else, acting only in his or her own self-interest, without
regard for others. This produces what he called the "state of war," a way of life that is certain to prove
"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Leviathan I 13) The only escape is by entering into contracts
with each other—mutually beneficial agreements to surrender our individual interests in order to achieve
the advantages of security that only a social existence can provide. (Leviathan I 14)
Human Society
Unable to rely indefinitely on their individual powers in the effort to secure livelihood and contentment,
Hobbes supposed, human beings join together in the formation of a commonwealth. Thus, the
commonwealth as a whole embodies a network of associated contracts and provides for the highest form
of social organization. On Hobbes's view, the formation of the commonwealth creates a new, artificial
person (the Leviathan) to whom all responsibility for social order and public welfare is entrusted.
Of course, someone must make decisions on behalf of this new whole, and that person will be the
sovereign. The commonwealth-creating covenant is not in essence a relationship between subjects and
their sovereign at all. Rather, what counts is the relationship among subjects, all of whom agree to divest
themselves of their native powers in order to secure the benefits of orderly government by obeying the
dictates of the sovereign authority. (Leviathan II 18) That's why the minority who might prefer a different
sovereign authority have no complaint, on Hobbes's view: even though they have no respect for this
particular sovereign, they are still bound by their contract with fellow-subjects to be governed by a single
authority. The sovereign is nothing more than the institutional embodiment of orderly government.
Since the decisions of the sovereign are entirely arbitrary, it hardly matters where they come from, so
long as they are understood and obeyed universally. Thus, Hobbes's account explicitly leaves open the
possibility that the sovereign will itself be a corporate person—a legislature or an assembly of all
citizens—as well as a single human being. Regarding these three forms, however, Hobbes himself
maintained that the commonwealth operates most effectively when a hereditary monarch assumes the
sovereign role. (Leviathan II 19) Investing power in a single natural person who can choose advisors and
rule consistently without fear of internal conflicts is the best fulfillment of our social needs. Thus, the
radical metaphysical positions defended by Hobbes lead to a notably conservative political result, an
endorsement of the paternalistic view.
Hobbes argued that the commonwealth secures the liberty of its citizens. Genuine human freedom, he
maintained, is just the ability to carry out one's will without interference from others. This doesn't entail
an absence of law; indeed, our agreement to be subject to a common authority helps each of us to secure
liberty with respect to others. (Leviathan II 21) Submission to the sovereign is absolutely decisive, except
where it is silent or where it claims control over individual rights to life itself, which cannot be transferred
to anyone else. But the structure provided by orderly government, according to Hobbes, enhances rather
than restricts individual liberty.
Whether or not the sovereign is a single heredetary monarch, of course, its administration of social
order may require the cooperation and assistance of others. Within the commonwealth as a whole, there
may arise smaller "bodies politic" with authority over portions of the lives of those who enter into them.
The sovereign will appoint agents whose responsibility is to act on its behalf in matters of less than
highest importance. Most important, the will of the sovereign for its subjects will be expressed in the form
of civil laws that have either been decreed or tacitly accepted. (Leviathan II 26) Criminal violations of
these laws by any subject will be appropriately punished by the sovereign authority.
Despite his firm insistence on the vital role of the sovereign as the embodiment of the commonwealth,
Hobbes acknowledged that there are particular circumstances under which it may fail to accomplish its
purpose. (Leviathan II 29) If the sovereign has too little power, is made subject to its own laws, or allows
its power to be divided, problems will arise. Similarly, if individual subjects make private judgments of
right and wrong based on conscience, succomb to religious enthisiasm, or acquire excessive private
property, the state will suffer. Even a well-designed commonwealth may, over time, cease to function and
will be dissolved.
John Locke (1632-1704)
The fundamental principles of Locke's philosophy are presented in An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding (1690), the culmination of twenty years of reflection on the origins of human knowledge.
According to Locke, what we know is always properly understood as the relation between ideas, and he
devoted much of the Essay to an extended argument that all of our ideas—simple or complex—are
ultimately derived from experience. The consequence of this empiricist approach is that the knowledge of
which we are capable is severely limited in its scope and certainty. Our knowledge of material substances,
for example, depends heavily on the secondary qualities by reference to which we name them, while their
real inner natures derive from the primary qualities of their insensible parts. Nevertheless, Locke held that
we have no grounds for complaint about the limitations of our knowledge, since a proper application of
our cognitive capacities is enough to guide our action in the practical conduct of life.
Locke chose to avoid controversy by publishing his political writings anonymously. With the Two
Treatises of Civil Government (1690), Locke established himself as a political theorist of the highest
order. On Locke's view, all rights begin in the individual property interest created by an investment of
labor. The social structure or commonwealth, then, depends for its formation and maintenance on the
express consent of those who are governed by its political powers. Majority rule thus becomes the
cornerstone of all political order, and dissatisfied citizens reserve a lasting right to revolution. Similarly,
Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration (1689) argued for a broad (though not limitless) acceptance of
alternative religious convictions.
Locke’s intellectual curiosity and social activism also led him to consider issues of general public
concern in the lively political climate of seventeenth-century England. In a series of Letters on Toleration,
he argued against the exercise of any governmental effort to promote or to restrict particular religious
beliefs and practices. His epistemology is directly relevant to this issue: since we cannot know perfectly
the truth about all differences of religious opinion, Locke held, there can be no justification for imposing
our own beliefs on others. Thus, although he shared his generation's prejudice against "enthusiastic"
expressions of religious fervor, Locke officially defended a broad toleration of divergent views.
Property
From the outset, Locke openly declared the remarkable theme of his political theory: in order to
preserve the public good, the central function of government must be the protection of private property.
(2nd Treatise §3) Consider how human social life begins, in a hypothetical state of nature: Each
individual is perfectly equal with every other, and all have the absolute liberty to act as they will, without
interference from any other. (2nd Treatise §4) What prevents this natural state from being a violent
Hobbesian free-for-all, according to Locke, is that each individual shares in the use of the faculty of
reason, so that the actions of every human agent—even in the unreconstructed state of nature—are bound
by the self-evident laws of nature.
Understood in this way, the state of nature vests each reasonable individual with an independent right
and responsibility to enforce the natural law by punishing those few who irrationally choose to violate it.
(2nd Treatise §§7-8) Because all are equal in the state of nature, the proportional punishment of criminals
is a task anyone may undertake. Only in cases when the precipitate action of the offender permits no time
for appeal to the common sense, reason, and will of others, Locke held, does this natural state degenerate
into the state of war of each against all. (2nd Treatise §19)
Everything changes with the gradual introduction of private property. Originally, Locke supposed, the
earth and everything on it belongs to all of us in common; among perfectly equal inhabitants, all have the
same right to make use of whatever they find and can use. The only exception to this rule is that each of
us has an exclusive right to her/his own body and its actions. But applying these actions to natural objects
by mixing our labor with them, Locke argued, provides a clear means for appropriating them as an
extension of our own personal property. (2nd Treatise §27) Since our bodies and their movements are our
own, whenever we use our own effort to improve the natural world—the resulting products belong to us
as well.
Within reasonable limits, then, individuals are free to pursue their own "life, health, liberty, and
possessions." Of course the story gets more complicated with the introduction of a monetary system that
makes it possible to store up value in excess of what the individual can responsibly enjoy. (2nd Treatise
§37) The fundamental principle still applies: labor is the ultimate source of all economic value. (2nd
Treatise §42) But the creation of a monetary system requires an agreement among distinct individuals on
the artificial "value" frozen in what is, in itself, nothing more than a bit of "colored metal." This need for
agreement, in turn, gives rise to the social order.
Civil Society
Although each individual in the state of nature has the right to enforce the natural law in defence of
property interests, the formation of a civil society requires that all individuals voluntarily surrender this
right to the community at large. By declaring and enforcing fixed rules for conduct—human laws—the
commonwealth thus serves as "umpire" in the adjudication of property disputes among those who choose
to be governed in this way. (2nd Treatise §87-89) An absolute monarch, by contrast, can only remain in a
state of nature with respect to the subjects under its rule.
Securing social order through the formation of any government invariably requires the direct consent of
those who are to be governed. (2nd Treatise §95) Each and every individual must concur in the the
original agreement to form such a government, but it would be enormously difficult to achieve unanimous
consent with respect to the particular laws it promulgates. So, in practice, Locke supposed that the will
expressed by the majority must be accepted as determinative over the conduct of each individual citizen
who consents to be governed at all. (2nd Treatise §97-98) Although he offered several historical examples
of just such initial agreements to form a society, Locke reasonably maintained that this is beside the point.
All people who voluntarily choose to live within a society have implicitly or tacitly entered into its
formative agreement, and thereby consented to submit themselves and their property to its governance.
(2nd Treatise §119)
The structure or form of the government so established is a matter of relatively less importance, on
Locke's view. (2nd Treatise §132) What matters is that legislative power—the ability to provide for social
order and the common good by setting standing laws over the acquisition, preservation, and transfer of
property—is provided for in ways to which everyone consents. (2nd Treatise §134-8) Because the laws
are established and applied equally to all, Locke argued, this is not merely an exercize in the arbitrary use
of power, but an effort to secure the rights of all more securely than would be possible under the
independence and equality of the state of nature.
Since standing laws continue in force long after they have been established, Locke pointed out that the
legislative body responsible for deciding what the laws should be need only meet occasionally, but the
executive branch of government, responsible for ensuring that the laws are actually obeyed, must be
continuous in its operation within the society. (2nd Treatise §144) In similar fashion, he supposed that the
federative power responsible for representing this particular commonwealth in the world at large, needs a
lengthy tenure. Locke's presumption is that the legislative function of government will be vested in a
representative assembly, which naturally retains the supreme power over the commonwealth as a whole:
whenever it assembles, the majority of its members speak jointly for everyone in the society. The
executive and federative functions, then, are performed by other persons (magistrates and ministers)
whose power to enforce and negotiate is wholly derived from the legislative. (2nd Treatise §153) But
since the legislature is not perpetually in session, occasions will sometimes arise for which the standing
laws have made no direct provision, and then the executive will have to exercize its prerogative to deal
with the situation immediately, relying upon its own counsel in the absence of legislative direction. (2nd
Treatise §160) It is the potential abuse of this prerogative, Locke supposed, that most often threatens the
stability and order of a commonwealth.
Revolution
Whether any specific use of executive prerogative amounts to an abuse of power, is a question that
transcends the social contract itself, and can only be judged by a higher appeal, to the divinely ordained
law of nature. (2nd Treatise §168) Remember that according to Locke all legitimate political power
derives solely from the consent of the governed to entrust their "lives, liberties, and possessions" to the
oversight of the community as a whole, as expressed in the majority of its legislative body. (2nd Treatise
§171) The commonwealth as a whole, then, is dissolved (and a new one formed) whenever there is a
fundamental change in the membership of the legislature. (2nd Treatise §220)
The most likely cause of such a revolution, Locke supposed, would be abuse of power by the
government itself: when the society unduly interferes with the property interests of the citizens, they are
bound to protect themselves by withdrawing their consent. (2nd Treatise §222) When great mistakes are
made in the governance of a commonwealth, only rebellion holds any promise of the restoration of
fundamental rights. (2nd Treatise §225 ) Who is to be the judge of whether or not this has actually
occurred? Only the people can decide, Locke maintained, since the very existence of the civil order
depends upon their consent. (2nd Treatise §240) On Locke's view, then, the possibility of revolution is a
permanent feature of any properly-formed civil society. This provided a post facto defense of the Glorious
Revolution in England and was a significant element in attempts to justify later popular revolts in
America and France.
Voltaire (1694-1778)
French writer, satirist, the embodiment of the 18th-century Enlightenment. Voltaire is remembered as a
crusader against tyranny and bigotry. Compared to Rousseau's rebelliousness and idealism, Voltaire's
world view was more skeptical. His great contemporary thinker Voltaire disliked, but both of their ideas
influenced deeply the French Revolution. In 1761 Voltaire wrote to Rousseau: "One feels like crawling on
all fours after reading your work."
"Liberty of thought is the life of the soul." (from Essay on Epic Poetry, 1727)
François-Marie Arouet de Voltaire was born in Paris into a middle-class family. His father was a minor
treasury official. Voltaire was educated by the Jesuits at the Collège Louis-le-Grand (1704-11). He
learned Latin and Greek and later in life he became fluent in Italian, Spanish and English. From 1711 to
1713 he studied law. Before devoting himself entirely to writing, Voltaire worked as a secretary to the
French ambassador in Holland. From the beginning, Voltaire had troubles with the authorities, but he
energetically attacked the government and the Catholic church. These activities led to numerous
imprisonments and exiles. In his early twenties he spent eleven months in the Bastille for writing satiric
verses about the aristocracy.
Voltaire did not support the dogmatic theology of institutional religions, his religiosity was anticlerical.
With his brother Armand, who was a fundamentalist Catholic, Voltaire did not get on as well as with his
sister. Atheism Voltaire considered not as baleful as fanaticism, but nearly always fatal to virtue. The
doctrines about the Trinity or the Incarnation he dismissed as nonsense. As a humanist, Voltaire
advocated religious and social tolerance, but not necessarily in a direct way. Well known is Voltaire's
hostility toward the Jews. His play LE FANATISME, OU MAHOMET LE PROPHÈTE (1741), which
portrayed the founder of Islam as an intriguer and greedy for power, was denounced by Catholic
clergymen. They had no doubts that the true target was Christian fanaticism. However, Pope Benedict
XIV, whom Voltaire dedicated the work, replied by saying that he read it with great pleasure.
In 1716 Voltaire was arrested and exiled from Paris for five months. From 1717 to 1718 he was
imprisoned in the Bastille for lampoons of the Regency. During this time he wrote the tragedy ŒDIPE,
and started to use the name Voltaire. The play brought him fame which did not lessen the number of his
enemies at court.
At his 1726 stay at the Bastille, Voltaire was visited by a flow of admirers. Between 1726 and 1729 he
lived in exile mainly in England. There he avoided trouble for three years and wrote in English his first
essays, ESSAY UPON EPIC POETRY and ESSAY UPON THE CIVIL WARS IN FRANCE, which
were published in 1727. After returning to France Voltaire wrote plays, poetry, historical and scientific
treatises and became royal historiographer. HISTOIRE DE CHARLES XII (1731) used novelistic
technique and rejected the idea that divine intervention guides history. In 1734 appeared Voltaire's
Philosophical Letters in which he compared the French system of government with the system he had
seen in England. Voltaire stated that he had perceived fewer barriers between occupations in England than
in his own country. The book was banned, and Voltaire was forced to flee Paris. The English edition
became a bestseller outside France.
"In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the
other." (from Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764)
Voltaire died in Paris on May 30, 1778, as the undisputed leader of the Age of Enlightenment. He had
suffered throughout his life from poor health, but at the time of his death he was eighty-four. Voltaire left
behind him over fourteen thousand known letters and over two thousand books and pamphlets. Among
his best-known works is the satirical short story CANDIDE (1759), which reflected the nihilism of
Jonathan Swift. In the story the young and innocent hero, Candide, experiences a long series of
misfortunes and disastrous adventures. He is kicked out of the castle of Thunder-Ten-Tronckh for making
love to the baron's daughter, Cunégonde, in the army he is beaten nearly to death, in Lisbon he
experiences the famous earthquake, he is hunted by the Inquisition and Jesuits, and threatened with
imprisonment in Paris. Meanwhile Cunégonde's father, mother and brother are hacked to pieces by
invaders, and she is raped repeatedly. Eventually Candide marries Cunégonde, who has become an ugly
gummy-eyed, flat-chested washerwoman, with wrinkled cheeks."If this is the best of possible worlds,"
Voltaire wrote, "what then are the others." Finally Candide finds the pleasures of cultivating one's garden
- "Il faut cultiver notre jardin."
Candide's world is full of liars, traitors, ingrates, thieves, misers, killers, fanatics, hypocrites, fools and
so on. However, Voltaire's outrage is not based on social criticism but on his ironic view of human nature.
When Candide asks his friend Martin, does he believe that men have always massacred one another,
Martin points out that hawks eat pigeons. "-Well, said Martin, if hawks have always had the same
character, why do you suppose that men have changed?" Candide rejects the philosophy of his tutor, the
unsuccessfully hanged Doctor Pangloss, who claims that "all is for the best in this best of all possible
worlds" (see Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz). Candide was partly inspired by the devastating Lisbon
earthquake of 1755, Dr. Pangloss was allegedly a caricature of Leibniz, but it is possible that the real
model was Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698-1759), a French philosopher and scientist. The
prolific writer produced a number of studies from the physics of Venus to the proof of the existence of
God. Voltaire's L'HISTOIRE DU DOCTOEUR AKAKIA ET DU NATIF DE SAINT-MALO (1753)
openly ridiculed Maupertuis' ideas. Candide's narrative frame, the education of a young man, was again
utilized among others in Stendhal's The Red and the Black and Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain.
Leonard Bernstein made Candide a musical comedy in 1957.
In addition to Candide, Voltaire treated the problem of evil in his classic tale ZADIG (1747), set in the
ancient Babylon, and in 'Poem of the Lisbon' Earthquake'. "But how conceive a God supremely good,"
Voltaire asked in the poem, "Who heaps his favours on the sons he loves, / Yet scatters evil with as large
a hand?" MICROMÉGAS (1752) was an early science-fiction story, in which two ambassadors from the
outer space visit Earth, and witness follies of human thought and behavior. Voltaire possibly wrote the
conte already in 1738-39. It has similarities with 'Voyage du Baron Gangan', which he sent to Fredrick the
Great.
Voltaire's Dictionnaire Philosophique was burned with the young Chevalier de la Barre, who had
neglected to take of his hat while passing a bridge, where a sacred statue was exposed. Later Voltaire
introduced his Dictionary as a dialogical book: its short, polemical articles were more useful when "the
readers produce the other half". In Essay on the Manner and Spirit of Nations, Voltaire presented the first
modern comparative history of civilizations, including Asia. Later he returned to the Chinese philosophy
is his Dictionary, praising the teachings of Confucius: "What more beautiful rule of conduct has ever been
given man since the world began? Let us admit that there has been no legislator more useful to the human
race."
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
Perhaps the single most important Enlightenment writer was the philosopher-novelist-composer-music
theorist-language theorist-etc. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), who is important not merely for his
ideas (which generally recycled older Enlightenment ideas) but for his passionate rhetoric, which
enflamed a generation and beyond. The central problem he confronted most of his life he sums up in the
first sentence of his most famous work, The Social Contract:
"Man is born free but everywhere is in chains."
The central concept in Rousseau's thought is "liberty," and most of his works deal with the mechanisms
through which humans are forced to give up their liberty. At the foundation of his thought on government
and authority is the idea of the "social contract," in which government and authority are a mutual contract
between the authorities and the governed; this contract implies that the governed agree to be ruled only so
that their rights, property and happiness be protected by their rulers. Once rulers cease to protect the ruled,
the social contract is broken and the governed are free to choose another set of governors or magistrates.
This idea would become the primary animating force in the Declaration of Independence , which is more
or less a legal document outlining a breach of contract suit. In fact, all modern liberation discourse at
some level or another owes its origin to The Social Contract and Rousseau's earlier treatise, The
Discourse on Inequality.
Written for an essay contest sponsored by the city of Geneva, Switzerland, in 1754 (Rousseau won the
contest), The Discourse on Inequality outlines all the key ideas that were to greatly influence modern
culture: a) the idea of the noble savage, that is, the happiest state of humankind is a middle state between
completely wild and completely civilized; b) the idea of social contract; c) the nature of human
distinctions; d) the criticism of property; and e) the nature of human freedom. As you read this essay, you
should get a good handle on each of these topics. In particular, you should compare these ideas to their
earlier incarnations (such as Luther's idea of "freedom") and keep them in mind as we explore later ideas
in modern human cultures.
Rousseau first argued that civilization had corrupted human beings in his essay, Discourse on the
Moral Effects of the Arts and Sciences in 1750. This corruption was largely a moral corruption;
everything that civilized people have regarded as progress & urbanization, technology, science, and so on;
has resulted in the moral degradation of humanity. For Rousseau, the natural moral state of human beings
is to be compassionate; civilization has made us cruel, selfish, and bloodthirsty. In the Discourse on
Inequality, Rousseau also argued that civilization has robbed us of our natural freedom. While semicivilized humanity looked to itself for its values and happiness, civilized human beings live outside
themselves in the opinions and authority of others. The price of civilization is human freedom and human
individuality:
In reality, the difference is, that the savage lives within himself while social man lives outside himself
and can only live in the opinion of others, so that he seems to receive the feeling of his own existence only
from the judgment of others concerning him. It is not to my present purpose to insist on the indifference
to good and evil which arises from this disposition, in spite of our many fine works on morality, or to
show how, everything being reduced to appearances, there is but art and mummery in even honor,
friendship, virtue, and often vice itself, of which we at length learn the secret of boasting; to show, in
short, how abject we are, and never daring to ask ourselves in the midst of so much philosophy,
benevolence, politeness, and of such sublime codes of morality, we have nothing to show for ourselves
but a frivolous and deceitful appearance, honor without virtue, reason without wisdom, and pleasure
without happiness.
In 1762, Rousseau published The Social Contract, which, though it was largely unread when it
first came out, became one of the most influential works of abstract political thought in the Western
tradition. In the Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau had tried to explain the human invention of
government as a kind of contract between the governed and the authorities that governed them. The only
reason human beings were willing to give up individual freedom and be ruled by others was that they saw
that their rights, happiness, and property would be better protected under a formal government rather than
an anarchic, every-person-for-themselves type of society. He argued, though, that this original contract
was deeply flawed. The wealthiest and most powerful members of society "tricked" the general
population, and so installed inequality as a permanent feature of human society. Rousseau argued, in The
Social Contract, that this contract between rulers and the ruled should be rethought. Rather than have a
government which largely protects the wealth and the rights of the powerful few, government should be
fundamentally based on the rights and equality of everyone. If any form of government does not properly
see to the rights, liberty, and equality of everyone, that government has broken the social contract that
lies at the heart of political authority. These ideas were essential for both the French and American
revolutions; in fact, it is no exaggeration to say that the French and American revolutions are the direct
result of Rousseau's abstract theories on the social contract.
It would be incorrect, though, to think of Rousseau as a thorough-going individualist. In fact,
Rousseau believed that the social contract, if it were followed on all sides, bound every member of society
to obedience to political authority. It was only when political authority broke the basic premises of the
social contract and individual liberty was replaced by inequality that Rousseau believed that government
should be torn down. Rousseau was trying to figure out a way to maximize individual liberty while
preserving order, obedience, and harmony in society. He was really the first Enlightenment thinker to
articulate the contractual basis of rights. Rights, or principles of individual autonomy or liberty, are not
magical entitlements that come from heaven into this world the moment you pop out of the womb nor are
they inscribed in our DNA. Rights and liberties are social contracts. You have rights and individual
liberties because the rest of society agrees that you have those rights and liberties. If you don't have a
right or liberty, then you must convince everyone to give you that right or liberty. For Rousseau, natural
human beings are born completely self-sufficient and self-governing; social human beings are dependent
and restricted. The rights and liberties that social human beings get are derived ultimately from a general
social agreement. This is one reason, by the way, that the American and French revolutions resulted in
"contracts" outlining the rights and liberties of the governed.
BARON DE MONTESQUIEU
Charles Louis de Secondat was born in Bordeaux, France, in 1689 to a wealthy family. Despite his
family's wealth, de Decondat was placed in the care of a poor family during his childhood. He later went
to college and studied science and history, eventually becoming a lawyer in the local government. De
Secondat's father died in 1713 and he was placed under the care of his uncle, Baron de Montesquieu. The
Baron died in 1716 and left de Secondat his fortune, his office as president of the Bordeaux Parliament,
and his title of Baron de Montesquieu. Later he was a member of the Bordeaux and French Academies of
Science and studied the laws and customs and governments of the countries of Europe. He gained fame in
1721 with his Persian Letters, which criticized the lifestyle and liberties of the wealthy French as well as
the church. However, Montesquieu's book On the Spirit of Laws, published in 1748, was his most famous
work. It outlined his ideas on how government would best work.
Montesquieu believed that all things were made up of rules or laws that never changed. He set out
to study these laws scientifically with the hope that knowledge of the laws of government would reduce
the problems of society and improve human life. According to Montesquieu, there were three types of
government: a monarchy (ruled by a king or queen), a republic (ruled by an elected leader), and a
despotism (ruled by a dictator). Montesquieu believed that a government that was elected by the people
was the best form of government. He did, however, believe that the success of a democracy - a
government in which the people have the power - depended upon maintaining the right balance of power.
Montesquieu argued that the best government would be one in which power was balanced among
three groups of officials. He thought England - which divided power between the king (who enforced
laws), Parliament (which made laws), and the judges of the English courts (who interpreted laws) - was a
good model of this. Montesquieu called the idea of dividing government power into three branches the
"separation of powers." He thought it most important to create separate branches of government with
equal but different powers. That way, the government would avoid placing too much power with one
individual or group of individuals. He wrote, "When the [law making] and [law enforcement] powers are
united in the same person... there can be no liberty." According to Montesquieu, each branch of
government could limit the power of the other two branches. Therefore, no branch of the government
could threaten the freedom of the people. His ideas about separation of powers became the basis for the
United States Constitution.
Despite Montesquieu's belief in the principles of a democracy, he did not feel that all people were
equal. Montesquieu approved of slavery. He also thought that women were weaker than men and that they
had to obey the commands of their husband. However, he also felt that women did have the ability to
govern. "It is against reason and against nature for women to be mistresses in the house... but not for
them to govern an empire. In the first case, their weak state does not permit them to be preeminent; in the
second, their very weakness gives them more gentleness and moderation, which, rather than the harsh
and ferocious virtues, can make for a good environment." In this way, Montesquieu argued that women
were too weak to be in control at home, but that there calmness and gentleness would be helpful qualities
in making decisions in government.
Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794)
There are three main legs in which Beccaria’s theory rests. Those are that all individuals possess freewill,
rational manner and manipulability. Beccaria, like all classical theorist, believe that all individuals have
freewill and make choices on that freewill. The second leg, rational manner, means that all individuals
rationally look out for their own personal satisfaction. This is key to the relationship between laws and
crime. While individuals will rationally look for their best interest, and this might entail deviant acts and
the law, which goal is to preserve the social contract, will try to stop deviant acts. This ends up with the
individuals and the society rationally looking for satisfaction, and at times these interests clash. The third
leg in which Beccaria’s theory rest is manipulability, universally shared human motive of rational selfinterest makes human action predictable, generalizable and controllable. The job of the criminal justice
system is to control all deviant acts that an individual with freewill and rational thought might do in the
pursuit of personal pleasure. This is made easier by the fact that human actions are predicable and
controllable. With the right punishment or threat the criminal justice system can control the freewilled and
rational human being. The problem the criminal justice system has is finding the right punishment or
threats.
Beccaria expresses not only the need for the criminal justice system, but also the government’s right to
have laws and punishments. He believed in the social contract, or the idea that freewill and rational
individuals made a choice to live in a society instead of living alone. When one chooses to live in a
society, then one chooses to give up some personal liberties in exchange for the safety and comfort of a
society. Laws are designed as the framework of the society and the rules for which acts are encouraged or
prohibited. Laws are the conditions of a society of freewilled and rational individuals. There is a need to
have some system set up in order to ensure that the individuals in the society are protected against any
individual or groups that want to take back the personal liberties forfeited in the social contract and those
who want to also harm the personal liberties of others in the society. In "On Crimes and Punishments"
Beccaria states, "but merely to have established this deposit was not enough; it had to be defended against
private usurpation by individuals each of whom always tries not only to withdraw his own share but also
to usurp for himself that of others". So there is a need for and a right to have laws and a criminal justice
system to ensure that all individuals in society obey or follow the social contract.
Beccaria felt that while there needs to be a government and a criminal justice system if there is to be a
civilized society, he did not believe that the current government or criminal justice system was
appropriate. He felt that the governments at that time were just a "few remnants of the laws of an ancient
predatory people, compiled for a monarch who ruled twelve centuries ago in Constantinople, mixed
subsequently with Longobardic tribal customs, and bound together in chaotic volumes of obscure and
unauthorized interpreters". The criminal justice system was not anymore enlightened than the
government. He felt that the criminal laws and especially the "barbarous" punishments of the time were in
need of reform. His treatise, "On Crimes and Punishments" aimed at creating a blueprint for which the
new enlightened criminal justice system would be based.
One thing that is essential to any laws regarding criminal justice is that the laws be created by a
"dispassionate student of human nature". He stated that many of the present laws were just "a mere tool of
the passions of some, or have arisen from an accidental and temporary need". Instead of laws created out
of passions, Beccaria stresses the importance of a to create laws for the "greatest happiness shared by the
greatest number" . To ensure that laws of that nature were formed, an educated and enlightened male
should create the laws that would benefit the entire community, and he should do so without looking for
only his benefit or passions. Laws should be enlightened, rational, logical and should be the greatest good
for the greatness number. He felt that criminal laws should be formed with rational thought and not
passions.
With the creation of criminal laws and a criminal justice system, a rational form of punishment must also
be created. Beccaria was very much against the cruel and arbitrary punishments of the day, but he did feel
that the government had the right and duty to punish those individuals that threatened the society. The
government had only the right to inflict punishments that were necessary for the crime, he stated, "for a
punishment to attain its end, the evil which it inflicts has only to exceed the advantage derivable from the
crime; in this excess of evil one should include the certainly of punishment and the loss of the good which
the crime might have produced. All beyond this is superfluous and for that reason tyrannical". So while
the government could punish it could not go over than what was necessary for the security of the society.
To determine what amount of punishment is necessary of safety and what is excessive, the legislators the
"dispassionate student(s) of human nature" must define the punishments for each crime. Since members
of society of rational human beings with freewill, they will commit acts if the pleasure of the act out
weighs the cost. To stop individuals from committing prohibited acts, punishments must be set to make
the punishment just over the amount of pleasure the individuals receive from the deviant acts. Any
punishment that grossly or even slightly goes over the amount necessary to stop individuals from
committing prohibited acts would be considered unjust.
Beccaria goes even further on his criminological theory, and he gives many examples of how the system
should work. He gives the particular principles that a just government would use to maintain the security
of the society. He discussed the arrests, court hearings, detention, prison, death penalty, particular crimes
and crime prevention. One the first parts of the criminal justice system that Beccaria discusses is the role
the courts play in obtaining justice. Some rules that Beccaria writes about are that: laws must be set by
legislators, legislators cannot judge persons, judges in criminal cases cannot interpret the laws, laws must
be clear and in need of no interpretation, offenders must be judge by its peers (half of the victim half of
the criminal), right of the criminal to refuse some jurors, no secret accusation by government, judges
should be impartial searcher of truths and judges should not become part of the treasury so that the do not
look to criminals to make money. He stresses the importance of laws being clear and known because a
rational person can not make a rational choice not to commit an act if he or she does not know that the act
is prohibited. He stated that, "when the number of those who can understand the sacred code of laws and
hold it in their hands increases, the frequency of crimes will be found to decrease, for undoubtedly
ignorance and uncertainly of punishments add much to the eloquence of the passions". If laws are clear,
need no interpretation and are known to the public than crime will go down.
Beccaria goes further and gives rules and principles for the rights of the offender once arrested. Some of
these include: imprisonment before conviction is important and accepted, certainty is demanded if they
are to deserve punishment, laws should forbid leading or suggestive questions in trial, no torture to
receive a confession and the right for the criminal to defend himself if certainty is found, but not so long
as to make the punishment not prompt. Beccaria wrote that oaths were useless, cause it will not make liar
tell the truth, "every judge can be my wittiness that no oath ever make any criminal tell the truth", and he
wrote that "it is frivolous to insist that women are too weak to be good witnesses", Also if an individual is
going to be imprisoned before the trial the offenders of harsh crimes should be have less time in trial but
more time in prison if found guilty. If an individual is imprisoned for a less harsh crime, they should be
afforded longer time in trial but less time in prison after found guilty. This is because the offender of the
harsh crime is more likely to be found not guilty, and thus the time imprisoned while in trial should be
minimized.