2. 职称英语
  3. The theory of the Social Contract, first formulated by the English philosoph

The theory of the Social Contract, first formulated by the English philosoph

游客2025-04-18  48
问题     The theory of the Social Contract, first formulated by the English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, assumes that men at first lived in a state of anarchy in which there was no society, no government, and no organized coercion of the individual by the group. Hobbes maintained that by the social contract men had surrendered their natural liberties in order to enjoy the order and safety of the organized state. The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in LeContrat Social(1762), found the general will, a means of establishing reciprocal rights and duties, privileges, and responsibilities as a basis of the state. Similar ideas were used as a justification for both the American and the French revolutions in the 18th century. Thomas Jefferson held that the preservation of certain natural rights was an essential part of the social contract, and that "consent of the governed" was fundamental to any exercise of governmental power. The Social Contract theory has withstood the test of time; it served as a rationale for the enactment of felon disenfranchisement laws in the past, and remains a compelling argument today.
    The early exclusion of felons from the franchise by many states could well have rested on Locke’s concept, so influential at the time, that by entering into society every man authorizes the society, or which is all one, the legislature thereof, to make laws for him, as the public good of the society shall require. A man who breaks the laws he has authorized his agent to make for his own governance could fairly have been thought to have abandoned the right to participate in further administering the compact. This is especially so when account is taken of the heavy incidence of recidivism and the prevalence of organized crime.
    When someone commits a crime, he commits it not just against the victim, but against our entire society. Protests that time sewed is enough, and that society should prioritize the rehabilitation and reintegration of felons should fall on deaf ears. Opponents of disenfranchisement claim that the inability to vote stymies felons’ "remittance into a law-abiding society". Yet they neglect to explain why the tonic of voting did not curtail felons from committing crimes initially. They have breached the social contract and, like insane persons, have raised questions about their ability to vote responsibly.
    Despite its initial attractiveness, the use of social contract theory to defend felon disenfranchisement is in fact specious. Disenfranchised felons are unequal parties to a contract that is fundamentally unfair in its formation on the grounds that they are unconscionable. The social contract between citizens and the state to which they delegate their authority gains its validity from the parties’ freedom to contract and share an active voice in negotiating. In fact, active citizenship in the United States is but a facade without this vital right.
    The felon, disenfranchised upon breaching the original social contract, enters into a second contract upon his release. The validity of this second formation is questionable because the felon, in his disenfranchised state, is not an equal party truly free to contract. This suggests that the contract is unconscionable because of the unincarcerated felon’s unequal position as a silent party to the ongoing negotiation of the contract.
    The social contract suffers from many of the ailments in the formation, liquidated damages provision, and unconscionable terms that would invalidate any traditional contract. The franchise should be returned to unincarcerated felons so that they may be whole and free parties to the social contract. The Social Contract theory and the objectives of punishment fail to provide a satisfactory explanation for the denial of one of the most fundamental rights to millions of citizens. Disenfranchisement’s defenders continue to claim that denying convicts the vote is necessary to protect something called the "purity of the ballot box" and that because offenders violate the "social contract", they forfeit political rights completely unrelated to the needs of incarceration. [br] According to the writer, does the "Social Contract" theory present a valid reason for felon disenfranchisement?
选项 A、Yes, because felons have raised questions about their ability to vote responsibly.
B、Yes, because a criminal commits a crime not just against the victim, but against the entire society.
C、No, because the preservation of certain natural rights was an essential part of the social contract.
D、No, because of the unincarcerated felon’s unequal position as a silent party to the ongoing negotiation of the contract.
答案 D
解析 根据第五段的“The felon，disenfranchised…ongoing negotiation of the contract．”可知，因违反最初的社会契约而被剥夺选举权的重罪犯，在获释后就开始了第二份契约。第二份契约的有效性令人质疑，因为重罪犯在被剥夺了选举权的状态下，不可能真正公平地应用这份契约。这表明契约是不合理的，因为未被监禁的重罪犯处于不平等的地位，在对契约不断进行的谈判中属于无发言权的一方。据此可知，“社会契约”理论不能为剥夺重罪犯的选举权提供有效的依据。D项正确。
转载请注明原文地址:http://tihaiku.com/zcyy/4043679.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)