The Social Contract Theory is the concept that in the beginning, people lived in the state of nature. This means that they had no government and there were no laws to dictate their lives. Thomas Hobbes (The Leviathan), John Locke (Second Treatise of Government), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Social Contract) discusses what they believe the Social Contract Theory. Each philosopher has different views depending on their understandings of human nature, the nature of the contract, the legitimate powers of the government, and the obligations of the citizens and political authority. With respect to these factors, each philosopher discusses the state, law, and rights of nature. These are all inclusive in the Social Contract Theory. According to Thomas …show more content…
Though he too believes in the state of nature, it is not as dreadful as Hobbes’ state of nature because his is “a state of perfect freedom” (Wootton, 287). Though his state of nature is a bit chaotic, it is not necessarily good or bad either, everyone is equal and independent. People are free to do whatever they want, but at the end of the day, they are still bound by the law of nature. Also, in Locke’s state of nature, the people have more moral and self-control even if there is no government. In Locke’s state of nature everyone is completely equal and no one has more liberty than the other. Therefore, since the law that governs the state of nature refers to everyone, “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions” (Wootton, 287). People are free to pursue anything that interests them without interference from the government because the law of nature prevents the government from imposing upon the rights of the …show more content…
Rousseau’s theory gives a generalization of what society is like today; it is somewhat representative of a republican/democratic society with how laws are regulated. The general will could be considered to be the Democratic Party because the making of laws relies on the people and the government is somewhat less inclusive; they only pass the law. We are born with freedom and equality, but these slowly become corrupted based on who is in power. Also, the reliance that the people have on the government is similar because if the government fails the people, then they have the right to choose a different president or rebel. Hobbes suggests that the people should give up all of their rights to the government and submit to them and to me this is like a dictatorship. In today’s society, the people will constantly be rebelling if they are not being considered valuable and they will not always agree that whatever the state chooses to do is just. Living in a world where anything goes is not beneficial to the population because not everyone is born strong enough to be constantly fighting over everything. Soon enough, the will of the people will die and society will end up becoming
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that organize people into societies, and is effective in persuading us that a limited government is the best government.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had some similarities in their beliefs about human nature. They both claimed that humans would always be willing to give up some of their freedom or rights to have security and feel safe. When John Locke says “The enjoyment of rights in the state of nature is unsafe and insecure. Hence, each man joins in society with others to preserve life, liberty, and property.” it is showing that he thinks the state of nature is unsafe, so people give
The Enlightenment was an astonishing time of transformation in Europe. During this time in the eighteenth century there was a progressive movement that was labeled by its criticism of the normal religious, social, and political perceptions. A number of significant thinkers, with new philosophies, had inspired creativeness and change. These thinkers had many different thoughts and views on people and the way they act, and views on the government. Two well-known and most influential thinkers of this time were the English political philosopher John Locke and the French political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These two men had laid down some of the intellectual grounds of the modern day government and both had different opinions on what the government’s role in a society.
John Locke explains the state of nature as a state of equality in which no one has power over another, and all are free to do as they please. He notes, however, that this liberty does not equal license to abuse others, and that natural law exists even in the state of nature. Each individual in the state of nature has the power to execute natural laws, which are universal.
Overall Hobbes believes that a state without government is a state fueled with distrust and war, where people will fight for power, gain, safety and reputation. In the state of nature life is a self-propelling war powered by fear. ThSe only way to reach a state of peace, according to Hobbes is to work in unity under a sovereign who will punish those who stray from the Laws of Nature.
Rousseau suggests that the first convention must be unanimous, and the minority has no obligation to submit to the choice of the majority, “as the law of majority rule is itself established by convention and presupposes unanimity at least once” (Rousseau, 172). For Locke and Hobbes, one’s self-preservation (and the protection of his property, which is quite synonymous to self-preservation to Locke) is the first principle , and if it is threatened, one has the rights to leave the “body politic” or rebel. Moreover, one also has the right to decide whether he wants to stay under the government when he grows to a certain age . Such arguments give the minority a passive freedom: their voice may not be powerful to change the society, but they can at least leave the society that is against them. Furthermore, Rousseau disapproves factions within a state, especially big ones, as their wills, namely the majority’s wills, potentially nullify the general will . His continual emphasis that the general will should represent the entire people indicates his concern for the
In Locke’s state of nature, men exist in a “state of perfect freedom” over their actions, possessions, and persons, within the law of nature (Locke 269). They do not depend on other men for anything. This complete intellectual and physical freedom is a natural state, but is not a perfect state. Locke acknowledges that full freedom, without a government to moderate it, doe...
...ture. As Locke himself says: the obligations of the law of nature cease not in society. There is thus a double restraint upon the body politic; it has to respect the natural rights to life liberty and property which people enjoyed in the state of nature and to abide by the law of nature itself. In short, unlike the social contract of Hobbes which gives absolute and unlimited powers to the sovereign ruler, the original contract of Locke gives only limited powers to the community; it is not a bond of slavery but charter of freedom. In the hands of Locke the contract theory is made to serve the purpose for which it was originally enunciated; namely, to defend the liberty of the individual against the claim to absolute authority on the part of the ruler. It hardly needs pointing out that Locke uses it to preserve as much of natural freedom to the individual as possible.
He states that, “Every one with every one...Shall be given by the major part, the right to present the person of them all” (Hobbes [1651] 2013). Thus, a democratic form of governance is beginning to emerge, and the responsibility of the sovereign is to form laws that avoid returning to a state of nature. Essentially, Hobbes presents a way of government that appears optimal, and capable of lasting a long term. The elected sovereign is not to be overthrown because through the unanimous decision of members of the state the sovereign was chosen, and maintain authority through deliverance of suitable laws (Hobbes [1651] 2013). Thus, citizens are more likely to comply with this form of government because they maintain the impression that their sovereign only looks out for their best interests, as well as recognizes what is best for them because he was chosen to be in
The problem is to find a form of association … in which each, while uniting
...ons on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. Each dismissed the divine right theory and needed to start from a clean slate. The two authors agree that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. In addition, the two political philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract. In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process. Rousseau’s idea of government is more of a utopian idea and not really executable in the real world. Neither state, however, describes what a government or sovereign should expect from its citizens or members, but both agree on the notion that certain freedoms must be surrendered in order to improve the way of life for all humankind.
The understanding of the state of nature is essential to both theorists’ discussions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is equivalent to a state of war. Locke’s description of the state of nature is more complex: initially the state of nature is one of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation”. Transgressions against the law of nature, or reason which “teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions,” are but few. The state of nature, according to Locke’s Treatise, consists of the society of man, distinct from political society, live together without any superior authority to restrict and judge their actions. It is when man begins to acquire property that the state of nature becomes somewhat less peaceful.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two English philosophers who were very similar thinkers. They both studies at Oxford, and they both witnessed the civil Revolution. The time when they lived in England influenced both of their thoughts as the people were split into two groups, those whom though the king should have absolute power, and the other half whom thought people could govern themselves. However Hobbes and Locke both rejected the idea of divine right, such as there was no one person who had the right from God to rule. They both believed in the dangers of state of nature, they thought without a government there is more chance of war between men. However their theories differ, Hobbes theories are based on his hypothetical ideas of the state
Thomas Hobbes creates a clear idea of the social contract theory in which the social contract is a collective agreement where everyone in the state of nature comes together and sacrifices all their liberty in return to security. “In return, the State promises to exercise its absolute power to maintain a state of peace (by punishing deviants, etc.)” So are the power and the ability of the state making people obey to the laws or is there a wider context to this? I am going to look at the different factors to this argument including a wide range of critiques about Hobbes’ theory to see whether or not his theory is convincing reason for constantly obeying the law.
This indicates that the community will only be peaceful when the people are in the state of nature. However, this questions why a government is created if the result will only cause the government to be corrupt. He also believes that there are interest groups that will try to influence the government into supporting what they believe in. Rousseau sees that the people will only be involved in the government is they choose to participate in the voting. He also says that when the people are together as a collective, they work and are viewed differently compared to when they are as individuals. Although Rousseau does understand both Hobbes and Locke’s theories, it makes the audience wonder why he didn’t fully support the theory of leaving people in the state of nature. By doing so, it would allow the people to continue having individual freedom without causing a state of