Social and Political History


Socialand Political History

Socialand Political History


Theargument of the author offers a comprehensive and a contemporaryreading that offers well balanced perspective of the modern daypolitical and social philosophy and the way classic thoughts haveshaped it. The editor integrates the work of Canadian philosopher,contemporary philosophies, and feminist perspective with the valuedreadings of political thoughts. This is suited to political andsocial philosophy bringing fresh insight to many issues that face thesociety today. Saying that a man commit himself to nothing means thathe commit to oneself to an inconceivable and absurd statement. Theact of surrendering is illegitimate, void, and null from the merefact that the one making it is not in his right mind.

Sayingthe something to all the people is tantamount to admission thatpeople in question are citizens of imbeciles who do not produce whatis right. Even through alienation, man cannot alienate his childrenborn free where their liberty is theirs alone and no one has theprerequisite to dispose them. The alleged right of a man to kill theenemies is not a derivative of the state of war, its only that, menin their primitive conditions are not bound to each other by anysufficient relationship to produce peace or war

AuthorReason and Justification of conclusion

Theauthor enquires whether in a civil order, is it free to discoverstable and legitimate form of government. The author argues that heconsider human beings as they are and laws as they might be. Theauthor maintains that a constant connection between what interestdemand and what right permits in that no separation arises betweenutility and justice. The author suggests that man is born free and heis in chains everywhere. Man believes that he is a master of otherswho he terms as slave. In considering the effect of force, as long aspeople are constrained to obey and in fact obeys, it does well. Thefact that it has recovered liberty through the virtue of the sameright it was stolen shows that it is entitled to resume it.Nevertheless social order is a sacred right which serves as the basisof other rights. The author justifies the reason by putting thatshared liberty is a result of the nature of man. It is the first lawof preservation of self. It concerns on what it owes itself. When theman attains the age of reason, he is the master of his own since hecan judge of what will be the best of his assured existence

Significanceof the author’s argument

Theargument of the author presents the belief or opinion of persuadingus to believe the argument under discussion. The argument identifiesthe issue or the controversy of the topic of social and politicalphilosophy/ The argument of the author is in regard to saying that aman commit himself to nothing means that he commit to oneself to aninconceivable and absurd statement. The author assumes that reasoningof likes of Aristotle who argued that men are not by nature equal butsome are born salves to masters. The statement in itself is true butit is not good to assume otherwise since the slave can be a masterand vice versa. The argument matters since the social compactness maynot be but a vain formula. It must have unexpressed singleundertaking which alone can give force to the whole in that whoeverrefuses to obey the general is constrained by the whole body ofcitizens to do so which is more than necessary to do so. In essence,man’s existence is dependent on existence of fellow men

Strengthsand Weaknesses of author’s argument

Inmy view, the author provides a good argument since he providessufficiency of information from a wider perspective. However, hisargument has some strengths and weaknesses. Some of the strengthsinclude the basis that the argument can be understood and it is alogical form of argument. His presentation of man as a consciousbeing is imperative to contemplate own purpose and get theunderstanding of man’s dependence on other men. Some of theweaknesses for his argument is that, it is divided into political andphilosophical criticism. His argument is based on inductive reasoningwhich has many flaws since new interpretation can destroy theexisting theory.


Myview on the issue is that, when a man renounces his liberty, herenounces the essential manhood, rights, and duty to the fellow humanbeings. There is no feasible compensation for such wholerenunciation. It is not compatible with nature of man and to deprivehis free will means that he will be deprived his moral sanctions.This convection is an absolute authority and also an obligation toobey void of questioning is vain and lacks meaning. The alleged rightfor a man to kill his enemies is not a derivative of war it is onlythat men are not bound to one another


Veltman,A. (2008). Social and Political Philosophy: Classic and ContemporaryReadings.