THE SOCIAL CONTRACT: HOBBES, LOCKE, ROUSSEAU AND THE IDEA OF

GOVERNMENT

Eric Rukamp
PHI 101-01: Introduction to Philosophy
Prof. Jason Badura
May 13, 2015
 1

In the course of civilization, there undoubtedly comes a time when the people see the

need to establish a government to help regulate and run society. But what is meant by “the

course of civilization?” What drives the people to want to establish authority? If they were

without authority before, what government did they have? What would be the goal of this new

government? Philosophers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau each

theorize answers to these questions. This essay shall look at the details of each philosopher’s

ideas of government. I shall also venture my own personal thoughts regarding these three 17th

and 18th century philosophers, where correlation may be drawn between three rather dissimilar

lines of thought.

We begin with Thomas Hobbes, using his work Leviathan to summarize his ideas.

Hobbes lived during the time of the English Civil War, when the lower classes sought equality

and revolted against the English Crown. Hobbes was a staunch supporter of the crown, and this

bias shows through in his philosophies. Firstly, Hobbes argues that mankind begins in a state of

nature only consisting of anarchy. The only thing men have in common is fear of the strong, and

the need to ensure one’s survival. Humans are, by their very nature, destructive, greedy and

chaotic. In the matter of natural rights, arguably the only right they have is to simply survive.

With these in mind, man simply wants more, more, more: more resources to ensure his survival,

more physical goods for himself, and more space to use these goods. Hobbes ventures that: “The

general inclination for every man is a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that only
 2

ceases in death.”1 We are no better than barbarians in the eyes of Hobbes. He continues by

indicating that mankind eventually comes into contact with other men who share his fears.

Seeking to rid themselves of that constant state of fear, man establishes a community based

solely, from Hobbes’ view, on protection of self and property. As the community evolves, man

will want to establish some kind of government. But what kind of government should they make,

and what should be its purpose? Well, Hobbes indicates that men “take no pleasure…in keeping

company where there is no power able to overawe them all.”2 This serves to argue that mankind,

in their love of power, want an authority above them that overpowers them all. This figure would

utilize their great power not just to rule the people, but to defend the people from others who

would destroy them. More and more we realize that Hobbes is arguing the validity of the Royal

Crown, or rule of one over all. From his view, mankind is too greedy and wanton to rule over

himself, and it takes such a figurehead to force the natural state of man into submission for their

own good. But what if mankind should become tired of the submission their under to this

figurehead? Hobbes’ introduces his concept of social contracts3, covenants wherein the people

innately agree to the power the government has over them. They established the monarchy to

protect them, so the crown shall protect the people not only from invaders, but from themselves.

Since it was the people themselves that established the monarchy, they themselves could not then

go back and decide to use a new government. In Hobbes’ eyes: you brought this on yourself, too

1
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Or, Matter, Form, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.), 76.
2
Hobbes, 85.
3
Hobbes, 86-91.
 3

bad if you don’t like it. Overall, Hobbes’ approach to our thesis is rather pessimistic, believing

men to be brutes without that powerful monarch ruling over them.

We continue with John Locke, a philosopher most well-known for laying the foundations

for the philosophy behind the American Declaration of Independence. Already, we have a sharp

contrast to the crown supporting Hobbes, given Locke’s philosophies laid the mental

groundwork for one of the most well-known historical revolutions: the Independence of

America. To begin, Locke has a decidedly more optimistic view of man’s natural state when

compared to Hobbes. While man might live in chaos, Locke argues that this chaos is more

divinely structured. To illustrate this point, we correlate God’s direction to Adam to name the

birds and beasts of creation.4 The divine structure Locke alludes to correlates to this biblical

passage, in that mankind isn’t driven to preserve just himself, but all around him. Locke goes on

to say:

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone; and reason,

which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and

independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”5

This is where we draw the main difference between Locke and Hobbes. Hobbes argues that man

is purely chaotic and greedy, while Locke says that man may be chaotic, but they are ruled by

reason. That reason is to preserve what Locke says are man’s natural rights: to protect and

preserve themselves and their possessions. Man is more constructive and destructive, and while

4
Genesis 2:19-20 (NIV)
5
John Cottingham, Western Philosophy: An Anthology (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1997), 487.
 4

some may crave more, most are bent on preserving what they already have rather than try to take

what their neighbor has. Locke continues by declaring that this logic is what brings men together

to form a society, which seeks to establish peace so everyone can enjoy what they have. Rather

than try to be more powerful than their neighbors, mankind simply wants to live in and preserve

peace. Government is born from this version of the social contract, where the people together

wish to preserve safety, order and peace. This is seen as the rebirth of Athenian democracy,

which lays the foundations for the republic of representative democracy we see today. Again, but

what if the people take back their thoughts, and decide that a different form of government is

needed? Instead of outright denying that like Hobbes, Locke declares that that is an inalienable

right of man so long as the government is failing in its duty to protect the people and ensure

peace. To summarize, Locke takes a more optimistic approach to man’s natural state, and

indicates that government ought to serve to ensure peace for its people rather than simply

dominate them.

Our last philosopher to look at is Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a French philosopher who

would be the philosophical foundation of another revolution: the French Revolution. Rousseau

takes what can be seen as the most abstract approach to answering: what is the social contract of

man? Rousseau begins by remarking that man’s natural state is to rely on instinct, but as he

comes together with others to form a community, this is replaced by the sense of justice. This

evolution gives man morality, the key thing he lacked previously. He continues by appearing to

draw ideas from not only Locke, but even from Hobbes. To him, men not only have the
 5

inalienable rights described by Locke, but also have the sense of duty to a sovereign power as

Hobbes describes. However, Rousseau argues that the sovereign power is not one person, but in

fact is the entire State. Rousseau states in one of the clauses of his social contract: “Each of us

puts his person and all his power under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our

corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.”6 Rousseau sees

the state as one giant political machine, which can only operate if each independent part

recognizes its role in the larger picture. Upon recognition of this role, the member is responsible

to ensure the good of the general will. That is, Rousseau stresses the idea of general consensus

rather than absolutely abiding to the wishes of each member. This idea leads to Rousseau’s

answer to the final question of revolution. He states that man “gives his consent to all the laws,

including those which are passed in spite of his opposition, and even those which punish him

when he dares to break any of them.”7 That is, while the general will may not be aligned to his

own, man is civilly bound to carry out what the general will believes is best. To summarize,

Rousseau strongly advocates the individual freedoms, but also promotes that men are duty-bound

to ensure the will of the general public is carried out the best it can.

In the matters of my own thoughts, I draw more agreement from the likes of Locke and

Rousseau than I do Hobbes. The idea of inalienable rights put forth by Locke are reaffirmed by

my personal belief, which is reaffirmed again in faith that: we men are created by God, who

designed us in such a way that we strive to live peacefully and understand the certain effects all

6
Cottingham, 499.
7
Cottingham, 503-504.
 6

men are entitled to. It is with the introduction of sin that we see men’s natural state corrupted to

the fiendish version put forth by Hobbes’, which I dismiss as it completely ignores the inherently

godly side we were first created with. In the matters of government, again I agree with Locke

and Rousseau. The government certainly needs the power to operate legislature and to protect its

people, and this power arguably derives from the citizens. However, total seizure of power by

the government as illustrated by Hobbes’ portrays a power to akin to Plato’s Thrasymachus

character8. That is, a totalitarian government where justice is simply what the strong believe to

be right. I look unfavorably on such governments as they historically always breed regimes that

abuse the natural rights of the people. Just in case you needed any modern examples, look at the

20th and 21st century regimes of Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Fascist

Italy, Spain, and others of this sort. Each and every instance reveals undermining of the citizens’

natural rights for the sole purpose of retaining power, all while disguising itself as a government

that operates for the people. This coincides with my final belief, again shared with Locke [and

Rousseau in part]: revolution is a natural, inalienable right of man in the case of living under an

abusive government. As quoted from Thomas Jefferson’s writing in the Declaration of

Independence (US, 1776), whose text was heavily influenced by Locke’s philosophies:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object

evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty,

to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Without a doubt, I stand on this very idea: if a government serves only its own purposes, rather

than to protect and serve the populace as was agreed in the social contract, the people reserve the

8
Plato, Republic, trans. Benjamin Jowett (New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2004).
 7

right to abolish it and start anew. The people shouldn’t be afraid of the government; the

government should be afraid of its people.

In summary, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all offer their own points in the debate about

mankind’s nature and the state of authority. Where one draws their own conclusions based on

these men will differ from person to person. Some may agree with Hobbes, some with Locke,

some with Rousseau. Some may agree with them all, some might agree with none of them.

That’s the beauty of philosophy; you are free to think however you wish, as long as you can back

up your thinking. Now the real question is posed: what do you, the reader, believe? What do you

argue is the natural state of man, or the purpose of government or man’s natural right? Welcome

to philosophy, where everything is debatable, but the subject always matters.

 8

References

Cottingham, John. Western Philosophy: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 1997.

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Or, Matter, Form, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical

and Civil. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.

Plato, Republic, trans. Benjamin Jowett. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 2004. Work

referenced, not directly cited.