Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are credited with the development of the Social Contract Theory, but their ideas reveal important differences.
The Social Contract.
Question.
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are credited with the development of the Social Contract Theory, but their ideas reveal important differences. The question therefore asks to discuss with reference to two of these authors and the important differences between the two theorists.
Introduction.
With reference to the question, it asks to discuss the concept of Social Contract. The social contract has been described as “A voluntary agreement made amongst individuals, through which an organised society or state is brought into existence” (Politics page 87). As previously mentioned the origins of this theory can be related to the writings of the two theorists which are to be discussed in the essay. The basic premise was to examine the grounds of political obligation and the justification where bye the individual is obliged to obey and respect the state. Both theorists argued that the state had indeed risen out of a social contract or voluntary agreement, made by individuals, who recognised that only by the establishment of a power base, would their individual rights be safeguarded. Both theorists argued that without the establishment of this “Sovereign Power” (Heywood, page 87”, a “State of Nature”
(Heywood, page 432) would consume society and all the brutality of this concept where bye abuse, exploitation and enslavement would occur. The state of nature which Locke describes is a place “Where there is no Law there is no freedom” (Heywood, page 87). Whereas the formation of a sovereign state offers a civilised existence which guarantees protection and liberty
Discussion.
As mentioned both theorists agreed on the principals of the social contract theory they both would rather have the organisation that comes with statehood who’s advantages, it would appear far outweigh the horror of the state of nature.
Hobbes (1588-1679) most famous piece of work, the ‘The Leviathan’,(Class Notes Davies, J. page 17) presents life before government was formed ,this was what Hobbes referred to as the ‘the State of Nature’. Hobbes believed that every man was actually equal and due and because of this concept he believed that a state of War would be inevitable, because every man was basically for himself. Men would go to was to fight for material possessions and the basic necessities of life, warmth, food and water. With the prevailing state of war Hobbes argues that there would be no society, trading or industry, as he says “there would be no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters”. He paints a really depressing picture but finishes by highlighting the life of man as containing fear, danger and violent death, which is “solitary nasty brutish and short” For Hobbes then, the state of nature was a way of rationalising how people would behave in their most basic state. Hobbes advanced the concept from which “Rene Descartes” stated ‘I think therefore I am’, (Dictionary of Sociology page 162) Hobbes used the individual as a building block from which his political theories arose. Hobbes argued that people would be willing to give up their rights to everything and anything as long as every other individual was willing to do the same. However it would seem that human nature does not advocate this and because of this pecululiar state, there would be no control and very soon some people would realise there was an opportunity to seize a greater share of power which lay waiting for the opportunist.
