Using the Social Contract Theory to argue against increased regulation of guns, Timmons of Disputed Moral Issues (p.29) defines the Social Contract Theory as, “An action is morally right if and only if (and because) it is permitted by a set of moral principles that hypothetical agents would agree to under conditions that are ideal for choosing moral principles (the precise characteristics of the hypothetical agents and ideal conditions to be spelled out)”. As I attempted to analyze the social contract theory, I translated this theory as meaning in some circumstances gun usage can be morally justified and is thereby permitted for the safety and lives of the innocent. For example, if an armed or unarmed subject was to enter a home posing a threat towards the homeowner, the homeowner has the right to bear arms to protect oneself as well as the family’s life.
Next, with so much crime occurring in the world today, many adults, excluding people with mental illnesses, should have the right to possess guns for protection from bodily harm, but the guns should be locked away in a safe that is easily accessible to the owners only. Additionally, no child should have access to their parents’ guns without permission. As far as permission goes, a child may have permission from their parents to hunt or target
…show more content…
Therefore, all sane adults should have protection. Next, if a person is being severely beaten by several bullies and no one attempts to break up the fight or call the police, that severely beaten person should be able to defend themselves however they see fit to possibly keep the bullies from harming others later. However, the element of surprise to a criminal could possibly force that subject to run off. For example, if the victim was armed with a gun and the subject did not expect the victim to have a gun in their
In terms of the American political system, the most significant of the theories of the origin of the state is that of the ‘Social Contract”. Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, James Harrington, and John Locke in england and Jean Jacques Rousseau in France developed this theory in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
Wally, business owner of Windy City Watches is located in downtown Chicago, IL. Business is booming and Wally needs to buy a large quantity of Rolek watches which sell for $50 apiece. He calls Randy Rolek, the wholesaler located in Milwaukee WI. They discuss terms on the phone for a while before coming to an agreement in which Wally offers to buy 100 watches for $25 each. Randy sends over an order form in which Wally states that he is agreeing to purchase watches from Randy for $25 each, but does not include the quantity in which he will buy. Randy sends 50 watches the following week with a note included stating that he has sent 50 watches and will send the other remaining 50 watches within a few days but includes the bill for the full
People learn responsibility when they are young children and what they learn reflects what they do and how they act later on in life. Children that grow up in a good atmosphere tend to have a better understanding of life and respect the life's of others. Children would also have a better mean of recreation, for example hunting, and for a means of protection from criminal acts. On the other hand, the ones who grow up in difficult homes that have unaffectionate parents tend to turn to crime as a way out or they are just doing what they think is right. So, we need to educate young children about the dangers of guns if they are not respected.
Gun control laws should regulate production, distribution, ownership and use of firearms by civilians. Gun control laws are not intended to dispossess law abiding citizens of licensed firearms but to intervene on reckless use of firearms that cause harm to the public. Gun control should also make it difficult for criminals to access firearms. Armed civilians have in many instances deterred acts of crime from being instigated by scaring away criminals. Nonetheless, gun laws can only be described as immensely lax. This essay seeks to argue for the enactment of strict gun control laws by highlighting the dangers posed by guns in the hands of members of the public.
Bernie a resident of Richmond, Virginia decides to sale his 2006 Ford Fusion for $13,000.00 and places an ad in his local newspaper on February 1st. After several weeks without any inquiries, Vivian contacts Bernie on March 1st stating she will pay him $12,000.00 for the car. Bernie arranges to meet with Vivian on March 5th to complete the deal. Vivian comes to Bernie’s house on March 10th and says she will give Bernie $12,500.00 for the car; but she needs three additional weeks to come up with the money. Bernie agrees but only if Vivian puts down a deposit. Vivian agrees and Bernie drafts an agreement stated the sale will must take place no later than March 31st. Vivian reads and signs the agreement and
There is a raging battle in the United States court rooms extending all the way to many communities throughout the US. That battle, or to be more exact, question is, “would stricter gun control laws be beneficial to the United States?” There are two perspectives on the ever-continuing question, one being that stricter gun control would be beneficial and cause less harm to citizens, and the contrasting view is that it is a right to be able to own guns, and that they are used for protection and recreational purposes.
For gun control, there should be some requirements for the people to take in order to own a gun for themselves. Throughout the United States, gun control should allow people to still have guns; however, the citizens should go through some changes to ensure safety throughout the nation. Gun control has given some helpful ideals before that would help the people understand the responsibilities of their guns. They want to make sure that these laws maintain to progress as a better solution. Authorities should suggest on adding more security throughout the nation. Most citizens believe guns can still be helpful. Some people, on the other hand, think guns should have been banned. In some ways, guns may be beneficial, however, for the most part, the United States government should limit ownership, and lend the police more authority to enforce government laws.
"The current federal system of government in the United States is failing to meet its social contract obligations to the American people." There is nothing closer to the truth than this statement. While some may argue that the government is following the guidelines of a social contract, many aspects of the government have outgrown their britches and taken over.
Social contract denotes that a government or sovereign body exists only to serve the will of the people because the people are the source of political power that is enjoyed by the entity. The people can choose to give or withdraw the power. Not all philosophers agree that the social contract creates rights and obligations; on the contrary, some believe that the social contract imposes restrictions that restrict a person’s natural rights. Individuals who live within the society gain protection by the government from others who may pursue to cause them injury, in exchange, the citizens, must relinquish individual liberties like the capability to commit wrongdoings without being reprimanded, and they should contribute to making society
The four elements of a valid contract are offer and acceptance, meeting of the minds, consideration and competent parties. The contract must cover a legal purpose or objective as well (Binder, 2012). The objective theory of contracts holds that contract formation is dependent on what is communicated, rather than what is thought by one of the parties (Barnes, 2008).
The quality of your individual life would greatly improve in utopia. The burdens you face from corporate monopolies, the overwhelming weight of the devaluation of your currency and the lack of faith in your neighbors to achieve a civilization of peace and mutual respect has taken its toll for too long. Although this sounds as if it was taken directly from George Orwell’s book (1984) itself, the propaganda of a utopian government rule and the current everlasting war breathes as it’s on self-reliant organization today. Weary of the multiple political parties that are emerging every three seconds, we are faced with a question that has been proposed since the beginning of logical thinking. Is it
Rousseau's principal aim in writing The Social Contract is to determine how freedom may be possible in civil society, and we might do well to pause briefly and understand what he means by "freedom." In the state of nature we enjoy the physical freedom of having no restraints on our behavior. By entering into the social contract, we place restraints on our behavior, which make it possible to live in a community. By giving up our physical freedom, however, we gain the civil freedom of being able to think rationally. We can put a check on our impulses and desires, and thus learn to think morally. The term "morality" only has significance within the confines of civil
Contractual agreements are supposed to be consensual, and freely entered into by the parties involved. Therefore, ‘before a court enforces a relationship as a contract, the courts must have a reasonably certain basis in fact to justify binding the parties to each other.’ (St. John’s Law Scholarship Repository, no date). Resolution of whether a contract was intended to be legally binding is not determined by what the parties themselves thought or intended. Rather, a more objective stance is taken by the courts. This is known as the objective theory of contract, and essentially enables ‘the courts to look at external evidence (what the parties said and did at the time)’ (Poole, 2006, p. 34), as to objectively indicate the parties’ intentions
Social Contract theory is the idea that in the beginning people lived in the state of nature with no government and laws to regulate them. In order to overcome the issues involved in the state of nature, people entered into agreements to protect themselves and their properties. They did this by uniting, rescinding certain rights under the state of nature, and pledging themselves to an authority that will guarantee certain protections. They all agree to live together under those laws and create a mechanism that enforces the contract and the laws that come with it. Some political theorists, such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, have differing views as to what the state of nature is and what should constitute as a social contract. One
On the formation of the Social Contract Theory has a long history, many people have formed Social Contract Theory has made a great contribution. Thomas Hobbes as one of the representatives of Modern Social Contract Theory, his departure from the theory of human nature, to a fictional state of nature as a starting point, put forward the basic principles of natural law, natural rights, and then through the Social Contract Theory, the establishment of his country theory. Thomas Hobbes certain extent, played a significant role, for people to bring enlightenment. But his theory does not apply in all cases; we need to analyze different aspects of different problems. In this essay, I will describe the Social Contract Theory, and explain the problem of how do we get out of the State of Nature raised by Hobbes Game. I explain the idea of cooperation that Thomas Hobbes can give to this problem, and then argue that this is not a satisfactory response to the problem for three reasons.