In this essay, I will attempt to examine whether Locke’s interpretation of the social contract would truly free the citizens of a contemporary society.
In order to do this, I will firstly explain Locke’s social contract; it’s workings and how it is applied. I will then go on to briefly outline the social contract of Hobbes, and how these two interpretations possibly differ. Then, I will ultimately study whether or not the Lockean interpretation of the social contract actually liberates people, or whether it lessens their freedom. Lastly, I will state my own opinion on this matter.
Firstly, I will outline Locke’s social contract. Locke explains in the 5th chapter of Two Treatise of Government that the world and its contents were given to Man by God, and that being so, the Earth belongs to all men in common, citing Psalm CXV, R6: “God has given the earth to the children of men". Therefore, he poses the question: “how can one discover individual property?” he arrives at the conclusion that human labour is the means of appropriating property. For example, he asserts the notion of the property of person: each individual owns their own bodies, along with the labour performed with that body. When a person applies their labour to an object, it becomes that person’s property. Say, that a person mows a section of a field, to which no one else has laid claim. According to Locke’s social contract, that field is rightfully their property, since that person has applied their labour to it. Locke then explains that that person can only lay claim to as much of the field they can use individually. It wouldn’t be fair or practical for a single person to mow an entire field, when they can comfortably use a 20x20 ft plot. Labour, Locke states, is the defining factor of value.
