INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND INSTITUTIONAL POWER

p {margin: 0; padding: 0;} .ft00{font-size:21px;font-family:NimbusSansBold;color:#000000;} .ft01{font-size:18px;font-family:NimbusSansBold;color:#000000;} .ft02{font-size:15px;font-family:OpenSymbol;color:#000000;} .ft03{font-size:18px;font-family:NimbusSans;color:#000000;} .ft04{font-size:18px;line-height:23px;font-family:NimbusSans;color:#000000;} INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND INSTITUTIONAL POWER Hobbes' Sovereign  Sovereign has unlimited power to enforce social contracts  But purpose is to maintain peace, security, survival for all  Individual rights like self-defense not fully surrendered Justifying Civil Disobedience  Social contract theory: We obey law to gain benefits of society  If denied basic rights, contract not honored  Can justify civil disobedience of disadvantaged groups Critique of Hobbes  Pessimistic view of human nature as self-interested  No evidence of literal social contract in history  But useful model for implicit social rules and norms Locke's Natural Rights  Morality based on universal human rights, precedes society  People equal, independent, and rational in state of nature  Natural rights limit what government can legitimately do  Basis of classical liberal political philosophy Issues with Rights Theories  What justifies these rights? How determined?  Usually resort to religious explanations  Utilitarian justifications breach deontological foundations In summary, Hobbes and Locke present contrasting views on institutional powerversus individual rights. While useful models, issues remain around justifying rightsand the relation between individual and societal interests.