Should the state prioritise securing social order or respecting individual rights Essay Example

Should the state prioritise securing social order or respecting individual rights? Essay To start answering this question, what first must be done is to define the terms state, social order and individual rights. Of course, there are various definitions of what the state is and what the state should do but I will be concentrating on the theories of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704) and Robert Nozick (1938-2002). To define what the state is is to see how far the state should and would go into securing such social order and delve into the private sphere i.e. that of individuals to secure it. It is not my task to decide which definition of the state is the most accurate, but to decide whether an encroachment on individual rights is acceptable to secure social order and such a breach could be termed utilitarianism or the greater good for the greatest number. To define social order, one must look at society and its stability. Social order is in essence a pattern of social norms and customs; both cultural and physical, that keeps society under control either by fear, obedience, dependence, or general acceptance that it is the best thing to do for either society or the individual. Individual rights are harder to define since they cover a various number of rights such as that of human rights, rights of privacy, legal and natural rights. My aim in this essay is to put forward my viewpoint; one that feels that securing social order is, to a large extent more important than respecting individual rights as far that the cause of such encroachment on individual rights is deemed necessary qualitatively and the severity of such a breach is not so great that it is likely to cause a backlash likely to result in revolt or is a breach of certain fundamental individual rights which I will describe later on. We will write a custom essay sample on Should the state prioritise securing social order or respecting individual rights? specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Should the state prioritise securing social order or respecting individual rights? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Should the state prioritise securing social order or respecting individual rights? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer The three definitions of the state I will use to reflect my own opinions are that of Hobbes; an absolute state, Locke; a more limited state refuting the rights of an absolute right of a monarch and Nozick; a minimal state interested only in protecting its citizens but not taking an active role in the lives of its citizens and not contravening any individual rights. First of all, an idea of an absolute state of the extent that Hobbes puts forward is set on the basis of trust; i.e. the subjects of the sovereign place trust in them such that they believe it is in their greatest interest for a state of nature is anarchical chaos. In such a placethe life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. (Hobbes 1991 ed, ch XIII) In such a case as this, it seems common sense to have a state, but perhaps not so absolute as Hobbes advocates. For Hobbes, Locke and Nozick, a state of nature is a similar state of anarchy but the logical next step in what a state will be and what powers they ar e to hold differ. With an absolute state, comes absolute power and this presents problems since the sovereign power is in all their capabilities, able to curb all individual rights for its own purpose or indeed, inversely, for social good and the good of many. My argument is that it is safer to have a state that is not absolute, but with diffuse power that whilst power is not held by all, it is held by a group which speaks for the people and of the people so severe infringement of individual rights is lessened and acceptable infringements are done for the greater good of which those that rule are part of. With my definition as described above, I now hope to show why securing social order is more important than respecting individual rights. I do not wish to go so far as to describe an Orwellian 1984 type state that removes the divide between the private and public spheres leading to an absence of individual rights with an absence of privacy but I do wish to show why I feel that social order is important in society for stability, protection co-operation. For example, if social order is absent, then the state has no power and if the state has no power, then we effectively fall back into anarchy or the state of nature which, as described by all of Hobbes, Locke and Nozick, is detrimental to humans. With social order, the state can exert a reasonable amount of power and force in order to keep society safe, obedient and efficient. In a minimal state such as that of Nozick, it is the states task to protect the public with military and police forces whilst not interfering in the private spher e at all. Whilst on the outset this looks sensible, it does not prevent the entire social system from collapsing as it does not control what society does. It may set out forms of legislation but it does not instil a set of norms into society and so, whilst taking care of the resulting problems, does nothing to prevent or take care of the causes of such problems. One important step in setting out my view is to maintain to what extent the securing of social order can take i.e. whether by necessary force or the like. In the present political climate and the War on Terrorism, some deem it necessary to sacrifice certain individual rights such as that to privacy in order to make society a safer place. Some would even go so far as to say that the detention and torture of terrorist suspects is also acceptable if it leads to results. The problem with doing such things as the results seen are only quantitative and not qualitative and so do not show the effect on the people these policies are directly affecting. Therefore, the form of the securing of social order should take is a limited one that does not infringe upon individual rights; primarily natural rights too much. This is not to say that securing social order is less important than respecting individual rights, but it is dependent upon it. The task of respecting individual rights is also of utmost importance since by doing so a state is more likely to be able to instil a sense of trust and obedience in its citizens. For Locke, as described by Held, the formation of a state does not signal the transfer of all subjects rights to the state[The States] central purpose: the preservation of life, liberty and estate. (Held 1990, 20) Certain individual rights therefore must be respected no matter what; the natural rights of man described by Hobbes and Locke. For Locke, in order for a state to flourish, man must have the enjoyment of their properties in Peace and Safety (Locke 1981 ed, 355). This essentially leads to the fact that certain individual rights such as privacy, safety from unnecessary harm and protection by the state upon entering such society should be respected. The extent to which the state can have its power in securing social order should be restricted. For Nozick, any interference beyond the areas of protectio n by the state contravened what the state and the sovereigns should be striving for and that the minimal state should not involve any more than protection through the forms of a set of legislation and a military and police force. For the legitimate power of a protective association are merely the sum of the individual rights of its members. (Nozick 1974, 89) For Nozick, a state in itself is effectively a protection agency that has risen out of the state of nature or anarchy. Therefore, it is the role of the state to respect all individuals rights. This however, is impractical to an extent since different individuals have different, conflicting rights. There are certain rights which are universal being the natural rights of man and it is the task of the state to uphold these; but it is more important to secure social order and so avoid the need for such strict protection in the first place. To sum up my argument, I believe, whilst respecting individual rights is of utmost importance, to take a utilitarian approach is a more sensible angle with which to tackle the problem. Therefore, whilst maintaining certain, unbreakable individual rights, it is sometimes necessary for a state to encroach on individual rights in order to maintain social order and a safer state for the greatest number.