Quick Warning:

This is an extremely oversimplified version of much larger philosophies. You should do much more research on any that you decide to use in your cases, and use this only as a reference sheet.

State of Nature:

This is the hypothetical setting of total governmental and legal absence. All people are equal in the state of nature, and they face no government restrictions. You may sometimes hear it referred to as The State of Anarchy.

Thomas Hobbes:

Hobbes thought people were generally evil, so the state of nature is an awful place whose inhabitants live in constant fear of death. Because it is so imperative that mankind leaves the state of nature, Hobbes believed that people owed their government total subjugation. People should not rebel, and should accept the government's rules no matter what.

John Locke:

Locke believed that people were generally good and moral beings, so he did not see the state of nature in as poor a light as Hobbes. That being said, Locke believed that it was still a very dangerous place because of the few bad people, so he saw the idea of forming a government as wise. In Locke’s world, people give up their total freedom in order to achieve full and successive protection of their three natural rights, Life, Liberty and Property. Locke argued that these three can be seen as the litmus test for governmental legitimacy, and people should rebel against any government that repeatedly violates them.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

Of all the social contract philosophers, Rousseau held the state of nature in the highest regard. According to him, people are predominantly good and wouldn’t commit violence against each other for no reason. Violence only began to occur in nature, according to Rousseau, when people began to claim property as “theirs” (you might hear this referred to as “man’s fall from grace”). Rousseau hated the idea of property, but because he realized that it is unavoidable, he believed forming a government was necessary. Rousseau’s contract is centered around the idea that we can replace common ownership of property with common rulership of man: democracy. In his world, all people must have equal say in the decisions of government, and people should return to the state of nature whenever they feel they do not.

Immanuel Kant:

Kant’s deontology is quite complicated. Without getting into the intricacies of his categorical imperative, it basically states that we should look to the morality of an action, not its outcomes, and that we shouldn’t use people as a means. In a fully Kantian world, it is never justifiable to violate someone's individual rights in order to achieve a greater outcome, and we cannot judge someone based on the consequences of their action, only by whether it was moral at the time that it was committed. Additionally, if the world would be a worse place if every human replicated your action, then it is immoral.

John Rawls:

There are two main parts to Rawls’ social contract. His Principle of Inequality states that certain inequalities are good in society, so long as they benefit the least well of. For example, it is good that doctors make a lot of money, because it is good for everyone (including the poor) that doctors are well trained and intelligent. The second part of Rawlsian philosophy is the Veil of Ignorance. Basically, this states that the moral structure of society can be best determined by hypothetical individuals who do not know where they will fall in the social system. Bottom line for Rawls: Justice = Fairness.

There's much more to cover, but these philosophers are core to LD. People devote their entire lives to philosophy - this is an endless discussion. Thus marks the end of this post. If you have any further questions, please feel free to email us via our email: resources.debate@gmail.com. Please spread the word to other debaters who you think may find this website useful! Make sure to check out our other posts, as they're guaranteed to help.