INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND SOCIAL CONTROL (Book Review Sample)

Professor’s Name Student’s Name Course Code Due Date INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND SOCIAL CONTROL I find myself contemplating the principles articulated by Socrates in Plato's "Crito," which have raised fundamental questions about the relationship between individuals and the state. Socrates argues for unwavering obedience to the law, even in the face of perceived injustice. This stance prompts me to consider whether a state has the inherent right to compel its citizens to serve in the military for its defense. Should individuals be allowed to refuse, asserting their autonomy, or do we owe an unyielding debt to the state that educated and nurtured us, granting the privilege of existence? Socrates's assertion challenges me to balance individual liberty and social control. However, contrasting perspectives, like those presented by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, shed light on different facets of this complex issue. In this essay, I explore the debate surrounding Socrates's principle, the state's right to compel military service, and the extent of citizens' obligations to their nurturing state. I argue that there needs to be a balance when addressing the tension between social control and individual liberty and whether the person or the group should be prioritized in determining the fundamentals of governance. John Locke's philosophical framework is based on individual rights and personal liberties. Locke postulates that every individual inherently possesses natural rights to life, liberty, and property. He views these rights as inalienable and integral to the essence of humanity, asserting that they existed before the establishment of governments. He asks, “If man…be absolute lord of his person…why will he part with his freedom?” (Cardwell 95). According to Locke, any legitimate government's primary objective is to protect fundamental natural rights. Furthermore, the very legitimacy of a government hinges on the consent it receives from the governed population. Individuals maintain a significant degree of autonomy within the social contract. They possess the inherent right to question or even resist governmental actions encroaching on their natural rights. This perspective highlights that the social contract is not an irrevocable surrender of individual liberties to the state. He asserts that individuals mainly want to associate with the government to protect property. He notes, “There wants an established…known law…with authority” (Cardwell 95). Should the state fail in this duty or exceed its legitimate authority, Locke's philosophy suggests that individuals have the right and moral duty to voice dissent and seek redress through lawful means. Thomas Hobbes offers a contrasting perspective to Locke's. He places a significant emphasis on the concept of the Leviathan (Cardwell 86). He opines that the inherent nature of humanity leads to an unending state of conflict, insecurity, and chaos. To overcome this, the philosopher posits the notion of a social contract. Individuals willingly relinquish specific rights and freedoms to a centralized authority in this contractual arrangement. He notes, “to lay down a man’s right to any thing, is to divest himself of the liberty, of hindering another…for him that renounceth…giveth not to any other man a right which he had not before” (Cardwell 86). This surrender is executed with the collective aim of attaining protection and establishing social order. In this regard, the authority vested in the Leviathan is absolute and indivisible. Hobbes's perspective stresses the necessity of a centralized government to avert societal breakdown. It reflects his belief that individuals' natural inclinations and behaviors are inherently conflict-prone. He also writes, “For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small families, the concord whereof dependeth on natural lust, have no government at all; and live…in that brutish manner” (Cardwell 89). The Leviathan's role is to impose order and restrain the inherent chaos within human society. In this vision, the state's power must be formidable, transcending individual autonomy to ensure the social fabric remains intact. Within Locke's framework, whether individuals have the right to refuse to serve in the military becomes complicated. While he acknowledges the role of government in ensuring security, he also believes that individuals should not be coerced. Thus, his philosophy allows for a space in which citizens can resist mandatory recruitment into the military. The philosopher asserts that individuals retain their rights even when confronted with the prospect of military service. Locke writes that a man has the power “to do whatsoever he thinks fit for the preservation of himself” (Cardwell 96). His philosophy allows citizens to resist military orders potentially violating their conscience. He recognizes that the social contract should not entail the unconditional surrender of individual autonomy. The government pledges to protect the liberties of its citizens in return for their consent and support. Thus, Locke's framework provides a principled basis for conscientious objection if individuals believe that participation in military service threatens their moral convictions. This perspective highlights the importance of maintaining a government that respects the principles of justice, individual rights, and the autonomy of its citizens. The insights offer a balanced approach to the question of disobedience and individual rights in the context of military service. In contrast, Hobbes would assert that individuals do not have the right to refuse military service. The social contract obligates citizens to unconditionally obey the authority of the Leviathan, which includes participating in the state's defense. To this extent, disobedience undermines the s...