Compare And Contrast Locke And Socrates

John Locke and Socrates both have two distinctive and compelling arguments about what the social contract is. While government’s today extract ideas from both theories of the social contract, it’s is hard to determine which is the just and appropriate. While there is little comparison between the two theories other than fact that there must be a relationship between the government and the people for a society to exist, there are several opposing ideas in these arguments. First, the Socrates idea of an implicit social contract versus Locke’s explicit social contract. Secondly, Socrates believes laws make the society and in contrast, Locke believes society makes the law. Finally, Socrates believes the very few educated persons or minority

According to Socrates if you reside in an area and at a mature age you decide to continue living there then you there by give consent to abide by the laws of the land. To be more specific he says, “But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command.” On the other hand, Locke’s idea of a social contract is explicit, meaning there must be some form physical agreement between a group of people enter in to society. Socrates’s idea is great but, it would lead to chaos and possible war that is why it’s only partial applied in today’s world. Let’s take for example the US and Mexico. Using Socrates philosophy, we would have massive migrations of Mexican people who just enter the US territory and entered into our social contract. Socrates’s idea is not appropriate because it would eliminate country borders and who can and cannot enter. His idea is only useful if you were born in the US, then you would automatically enter the social contract unless at a certain age they decide to leave. Locke’s theory, on the other hand, makes sense and is seen every day. Let us use the US and Mexico example again but this time with Locke’s idea. In this case documentation, signatures, identification, etc. are all need for Mexicans to enter into our social contract. Let’s say for example you

Socrates believes the opinions of the wise should be taken in to account while the options of the many be disregarded. He says, “Then, my friend, we must not regard what the many say of us: but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, will say.” What Socrates’s is say is the general public has limited knowledge and doesn’t have the ability to determine what is just and unjust, therefore their opinions should be disregarded. The reason I disagree with this because it implies that knowledgeable men are pure. But we know this is not the true nature of man. Man is greedy and power hungry. Kings and Queens of England are very well educated people but they were far from determining what was just. Socrates’s theory seems to me like another form of dictatorship where the very few control the many. Locke’s theory on the other hand, seems more practical. Locke says, “When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.” In simple terms Locke says that the majority controls what happens in society. The major flaw in this theory is that there is nothing to protect the minority, but Locke is heading in the right direction because we see it today. Most of our elections today are determined by the