The Social Contract : Hobbes Vs. Rousseau

The word Social Contract theory was first used by Thomas Hobbes to define royal authority. However John Locke who wrote the two treaties on government” in the 1680’s reinforce the meaning of a new social contract theory. In his version of social contract, he stated “men surrendered a part of their right to govern them selves in order to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law”(Foner, 149). In his argument, natural right such as life, liberty and proper play a huge role. According to Locke, Government or political system is form by equal individuals (mainly men of a household). Although men surrendered part of their right to govern to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, they do retain the natural right of protecting of liberty, life and property against any local or foreign enemies. According to Locke and the

Throughout history, many civilizations have had ideas on how to properly manage a society. These ideas go as far back as ancient Greece and the philosopher Socrates, but the most notable and widely accepted ideas on this come from the philosophers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Their ideas about how a society should be run were known as social contract theories, and although their ideas were different, they all had a common theme that would shape today's definition of the social contract. A Social Contract is basically an agreement between the members of a society to work together for mutual benefit. All the philosophers deemed a social contrast necessary for a properly functioning society.

Rousseau believes that men in state of nature were truly free and happy. Although, to maintain this peaceful environment people enters into civil society by agreeing on social contract. This contract binds people as a community and helps to maintain the existence of mutual preservation. Rousseau by proposing social contract wants to secure civil freedom from absolutism and such restrictive governments. By doing so, Rousseau also correlates liberty with humanity since humanity is determined by actions of person.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), an English philosopher published the work, Leviathan, which proposed the concept of the social contract, in which societal assimilation mandates submission to authoritarian rule, with a relinquishment of certain rights, in return for protection and aid. Hobbes offered a foundational premise for benefits that otherwise might be absent, if not for societal constructs. John Locke, another English philosopher published the Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which expounded on the work of Hobbes by proposing a more integrated and ordered society. The societal implications meant a surrender of some individual freedoms in return for a governmental structure tasked with the responsibility of protections, including the

Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to connect the philosophical commitments to politics. He offers a distinctive definition to what man needs in life which is a successful means to a conclusion. He eloquently defines the social contract of man after defining the intentions of man. This paper will account for why Hobbes felt that man was inherently empowered to preserve life through all means necessary, and how he creates an authorization for an absolute sovereign authority to help keep peace and preserve life. Hobbes first defines the nature of man. Inherently man is evil. He will do whatever is morally permissible to self preservation. This definition helps us understand the argument of why Hobbes was pessimistic of man, and

These Documents had deep impacts on today's world, Society would be much different if these were not in place. Both documents have roots in the arguments of the Enlightenment, and in philosophies of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke and Baron De Montesquieu. Crucial to both, America's "Declaration of Independence" and France's " The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen", was the idea of a social contract, which states that the general will and the people were sovereign, and if a king abuses the liberty of the people they have a right and a duty to dissolve the current government and create a new one, these are views published by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The social contract is featured in this passage,"It is the right of the people to either

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are often viewed as opposites, great philosophers who disagreed vehemently on the nature and power of government, as well as the state of nature from which government sprung. Hobbes’ Leviathan makes the case for absolute monarchy, while Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argues for a more limited, more representative society. However, though they differ on certain key points, the governments envisioned by both philosophers are far more alike than they initially appear. Though Hobbes and Locke disagree as to the duration of the social contract, they largely agree in both the powers it grants to a sovereign and the state of nature that compels its creation.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both share the common vision of the role of a social contract to maintain order in a state. However, their philosophies were cognizant of a sharp contrasting concept of human nature. This essay aims to compare and contrast the social contracts of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in respect to their definition of natural law. This essay will first analyze the pessimistic Hobbesian approach to the state of nature, the inherit optimistic approach of Locke, and then observe how their definitions directly affect their social contract.

John Locke is considered by many as one of the greatest political minds of our time. So much so that our Founding Fathers used the principles derived from Locke's Second Treatise of Government to forge the government of the newly-founded United States of America. Locke's defense of a limited government found in the Second Treatise echoed the sentiments of another great political thinker, Jean-Jacques Rosseau, shown through his work The Social Contract. Although written years apart, their views on natural law and human rights are similar. However, they both drew quite different conclusions on the type of government which would lead to a civil society.

Philosophers have always been a great influence in the history of the world. Both Thomas Hobbes (1558-1679) and John Locke (1632-1701) established the framework of their ideas on social contract in the thought of the condition of nature. Their hypothetical support for the formation of a common government gets from certain states of the condition of nature that requires the making of the political body. In this manner, so as to comprehend the political thought about these two creators it is key to concentrate on their origination of the condition of nature. Hobbes and Locke have diverse thoughts with respect to the condition of nature, which has imperative ramifications in their perspective of the social contract. Both creators utilize the sensible instrument of the condition of nature, however they do it another way, subsequently achieve distinctive conclusions. In this exposition the center will be put on the contrast amongst Locke's and Hobbes' thoughts of the condition of nature, and its suggestions for their hypothesis of the social contract, of human instinct, and profound quality.

The social contract theory, approximately as ancient as the philosophy, is an agreement among people through which maintained society in which they live ordered. Actually social contract theory is precisely associated with modern politics. In addition, it is given its first complete exhibition and defense with Thomas Hobbes. After Thomas Hobbes, J.J Rousseau is one of the most known proponents of this significant effective social contract theory. Throughout the history this theory has been one of the most dominant theories or ideas within political theory. According to the Leviathan which is written by Hobbes and to The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right which is written by Rousseau , social contract theory differentiated in

All men must consent to this “two-way commitment between the public and the individuals belonging to it” (8). This social compact between the subjects of a state creates the states “unity, its common identity, its life and its will” (7). Rousseau then laid out the two crucial parts of a state and their crucial separation: the sovereign, or the people, and the government. At the end of Book I, Rousseau summarized his proposed social contract by stating that it “replaces…physical inequalities as nature may have set up between men by an equality that is moral and legitimate, so that men who may be unequal in strength or intelligence become equal by agreement and legal right” (11). Rousseau’s social contract in theory would give each individual, regardless of physical strength or education, guaranteed freedom from the chains 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.

Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan, claims that peace and unity can best be achieved by setting up a society by having humans agree to a covenant (Hobbes: Ch.18 pg.548). A sovereign who is in charge of protecting the society or state rules Hobbes’s society. In his introduction, Hobbes describes this commonwealth as an "artificial person" and as a body politic that mimics the human body. Hobbes portrays the state as a gigantic human form built out of the bodies of its members, the sovereign as its head (Hobbes: Introduction pg.492). Hobbes calls this figure the "Leviathan," which means "sea monster" in Hebrew and is the name of a monstrous sea creature appearing in the Bible.

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes lays out the hypothetical principal of the state of nature, where human it-self is artificial. It is human nature that people will not be able to love permanently, everyone against everyone power between the strongest. In this nation-state you must be the strongest in order to survive (survival of the fittest). In order to survive there are laws we must follow, to insure of our security because of fear. We were able to suppress our fear, by creating order, to have more order; we must have security, so the social contract appeared.