This essay compares the classical social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. Different perceptions of the state of nature resulted in different ideas about the social contract and its emphasis on either security (Hobbes), individual rights (Locke) or the collective freedom of Rousseau's general will. Political philosophy is believed to have started with Plato’s “Republic”, the first known
sophisticated analysis of a fundamental question that humans have probably been
concerned with much longer: how should human society be organised, i.e. who
should rule and why? Plato believed that ruling required special training and skills
and should therefore be left to an aristocracy of guardians who had received
extensive training. While the notion that ruling requires expertise can hardly be
denied there is also agreement among most philosophers that whoever qualifies for
the job of ruling needs to do so with the interest of the people in mind. But what is the
interest of the people and how can it be discovered? According to Plato, a necessary
precondition for rulers is wisdom and that is why he wanted his guardians to be
especially trained in philosophy. One may think that the people themselves should
know what is best for them but somewhat surprisingly this idea has been rejected not
just by Plato but also by many philosophers following him. Another approach is to link
rule on Earth to a mandate received from a divine Creator. However, even the idea
that humans could not exist without a government has been questioned, most
notably by anarchism.
Thus, the question of how political rule, the power to make decisions for others, could
be justified is an essential one. Only legitimate rule creates obligation and without
obligation it is hard to see how any form of society can survive.
It is precisely for these elementary questions that social contract theories attempt to
provide an answer for. The social contract can be seen as a device both for justifying
not only rule itself but a particular type of rule, and demonstrating that political
obligation can indeed be demanded. A unique feature of the classical social contract
theories discussed in this paper is that they started out with an analysis of the state
of nature.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- The State of Nature
- Human Nature
- Liberty and Equality in the State of Nature
- Laws and Rights of Nature
- Summary
- The Social Contract
- Nature and Purpose of the Contract
- The Sovereign
- Liberty and Equality
- The Problem of Consent
- The Impact of Classical Social Contract Theories
- Conclusion
Objectives and Key Themes
This paper aims to compare the classical social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, focusing on their analyses of the state of nature and the social contract. The paper examines how each philosopher conceptualizes human nature, liberty, and equality within these frameworks. It explores the implications of their differing views for the justification of political rule and obligation.
- The State of Nature as a Conceptual Tool
- Contrasting Views on Human Nature
- Liberty and Equality in the State of Nature and the Social Contract
- The Nature and Purpose of the Social Contract
- The Justification of Political Rule and Obligation
Chapter Summaries
Introduction: This introduction sets the stage by outlining the central question of political philosophy: how should human society be organized? It introduces the concept of the social contract as a device for justifying political rule and obligation, highlighting the unique feature of the classical theories examined—their analysis of the state of nature. The introduction establishes the significance of the question of legitimacy and obligation in the context of political authority.
The State of Nature: This chapter explores the concept of the state of nature, questioning whether humans have ever lived without government. It discusses the concept as both a historical possibility and a mental experiment, useful for understanding the state by imagining its absence. The chapter serves as a foundation for the subsequent analysis of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau’s views, highlighting the importance of this concept as a starting point for their theories on political organization.
Human Nature: This section delves into the contrasting views of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on human nature. Hobbes characterizes humans as driven by a relentless pursuit of power and felicity, viewing them as inherently egoistic. Locke, starting from a theistic premise, posits a sense of morality inherent in humanity. Rousseau, in contrast, criticizes both Hobbes and Locke for projecting societal attributes onto human nature, arguing that humans in the state of nature are essentially "noble savages" characterized by compassion and a capacity for self-improvement. This section sets up the key differences in how each philosopher approaches the question of the social contract.
Liberty and Equality in the State of Nature: This section examines the perspectives of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on natural liberty and equality. Hobbes argues for a natural equality stemming from the fact that even the weakest can kill the strongest. The chapter then contrasts this with Locke's and Rousseau's views which likely focus on aspects of natural rights and the implications for the social contract.
Keywords
Social contract theory, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, state of nature, human nature, liberty, equality, political obligation, sovereignty, consent, felicity, power.
Frequently Asked Questions: A Comparison of Classical Social Contract Theories
What is this document about?
This document provides a comprehensive overview of classical social contract theories, primarily focusing on the works of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. It analyzes their perspectives on the state of nature, human nature, liberty, equality, and the justification of political rule and obligation. The document includes a table of contents, objectives, chapter summaries, and key terms.
What are the main themes explored in this document?
The core themes revolve around contrasting views of the state of nature (as a conceptual tool and a potential historical reality), differing conceptions of human nature (egoistic vs. moralistic vs. "noble savage"), the meaning and implications of liberty and equality both within the state of nature and within a social contract, the nature and purpose of the social contract itself, and the ultimate justification of political authority and individual obligation to the state.
Which philosophers are primarily discussed?
The document centers on the social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Their contrasting views on human nature and the state of nature are extensively compared and analyzed.
What is the "state of nature" and why is it important?
The "state of nature" is a hypothetical concept used by these philosophers to explore what human life would be like without government. It serves as a thought experiment to understand the reasons for creating a social contract and the justification for political authority. The document explores the state of nature as both a possible historical condition and a useful analytical tool.
How do the philosophers differ in their views on human nature?
Hobbes portrays humans as inherently self-interested and driven by a relentless pursuit of power. Locke posits a more optimistic view, suggesting an inherent sense of morality. Rousseau, conversely, argues that humans in the state of nature are essentially compassionate and capable of self-improvement, criticizing Hobbes and Locke for projecting societal characteristics onto their conceptions of human nature.
What are the key differences in their understanding of liberty and equality?
The philosophers hold diverse perspectives on liberty and equality in both the state of nature and under a social contract. Hobbes emphasizes a natural equality based on the capacity of even the weakest to harm the strongest. Locke and Rousseau likely focus on natural rights and their implications for individual freedom and equality within the framework of a social contract (although the precise details of their views aren't fully elaborated in the provided summary).
What is the purpose of the social contract?
The social contract, in the context of this document, serves as a theoretical framework to justify the existence of political authority and the obligations of citizens. It's the agreement, either explicit or implicit, by which individuals surrender certain rights or freedoms in exchange for the security and benefits provided by a governed society.
What are the key takeaways regarding the justification of political rule and obligation?
The document's analysis of the social contract theories aims to clarify the differing justifications each philosopher offers for political rule and the corresponding obligations of individuals to the state. These justifications are directly linked to their respective views on human nature, the state of nature, and the nature of liberty and equality.
What are some of the key terms used in the document?
Key terms include social contract theory, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, state of nature, human nature, liberty, equality, political obligation, sovereignty, consent, felicity, and power.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Sebastian Erckel (Autor:in), 2008, Classical Social Contract Theory, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/126144
