Philosophical tenability

The critics hold the social contract theory as philosophically untenable. The reason being, it: (i) treats State and society as a mechanical contrivance merely to fulfil selective needs; (ii) assumes a state of nature and also automatic endowment of political consciousness within it; (iii) assumes existence of rights and liberty independent of society and state. Firstly, the artificial contrivance view of the State espoused mainly by Hobbes and Locke is not acceptable to those who treat the State as something of a fulfilling and teleological nature.

Idealists and those who view the State and individual relation in terms of organic unity, treat the State as having a certain purpose—ultimate abode of man as a social being (Aristotle) or march of God on earth (Hegel) or self-realization of the individual. The State, instead of being a mere artificial and mechanical product, is the ultimate goal of man’s associative instinct and ethical realization. Secondly, the social contract theory presupposes political consciousness in the minds of those who are staying in the state of nature. Political consciousness and rational faculty are part of men’s social existence. Thirdly, many thinkers such as Green, Bentham and others criticized the theory and doubted the possibility of ‘natural rights’ and ‘liberty’ in the state of nature. Green, for example, criticized the concept of natural rights on the basis that rights are not exterior to man and do not emanate from something transcendental. He feels that rights emanate from the moral character of men. This character is the basis of moral freedom or a positive power of doing or enjoying something worth doing or enjoying. In short, for Green true liberty is liberty of self-realization. And to achieve this goal, men require rights. Thus, moral freedom postulates rights, and rights as such are recognized by the moral consciousness of the community as conditions of attainment of the moral end. Rights cannot exist unrecognized, hence concept of natural rights without the recognition of the society is untenable.

Bentham dismissed the theory as ‘rattle’ for amusement. The reason for this could be Bentham’s view of legislative supremacy of the State and being ‘sole source of rights’. If the State is the sole source of rights, to accept that rights can be ‘natural’ and exist beyond the State is, what Bentham says ‘simple nonsense—natural and imprescriptible rights rhetorical nonsense—nonsense upon stilts’.⁵⁸ For him, rights cannot be natural, they can only be recognized and prescribed by the state. For Edmund Burke, even if social contract is assumed to exist, it marked the end of natural rights rather than it continuance, as Locke would say.