Compare the Social Contract Theories of Locke and Rousseau.

In contrast to Locke’s idea of the state of nature being uncertain and rather chaotic, Rousseau argues that the state of nature is a paradise where every person is free. Rousseau maintains that people are born “noble savages”. They are strong and self sufficient and live highly isolated lives only coming together to reproduce. Rousseau states that as people begin to cooperate by forming families and developing technology, civil society is formed as people form a dependence on each other, for example, a farmer producing crops needs tools, so someone has to become a blacksmith as the farmer is needed for producing food. The farmer and the blacksmith then both depend upon each other. Rousseau argues that once the natural paradise of the state of nature has been corrupted, it is not possible for people to revert to it. He argues that socialised individuals are weak and timid like domesticated animals and are trapped by their need of one another: “man is born free and is everywhere in chains”.

As it is not possible to revert to the state of nature, the problem of how to govern socialised people then arises. As Rousseau believes that people are corrupted and weak because of society, they are therefore tainted by greed and the desire to dominate. The “amour de soi meme”, (normal self confidence which means that people look after themselves) which ensured their comfort in the state of nature, turns to “amour propre” (vanity and greed) in civil society. Like Locke, Rousseau believes it is important for people to consent to the state, however Rousseau goes further than Locke’s idea of consent and advocates participative democracy. That way everyone’s interest will be cared for and any form of government will be directly answerable to its people.

Like Locke, Rousseau aims to protect the interests of the people through a social contract by emphasising consent. However he goes further than Locke as Rousseau’s social contract theory is democratic. Locke’s social contract theory seems to consider revolution as the only escape from an inadequate sovereign, whereas Rousseau uses democracy. However, acknowledging the danger of an inept government and preserving the people’s right to deal with this is something both social contract theorists regard as important and attempt to make provision for. Locke and Rousseau do nevertheless begin from totally different premises as their ideas of the state of nature are totally different. Locke believes a social contract can protect people’s liberty and be a help to society, while Rousseau maintains that all people are “in chains” because of the amour propre developed in society and seeks to limit the damage that socialised people can do to one another.