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
1. The State of Nature
1.1. Human Nature
1.2. Liberty and Equality in the State of Nature
1.3. Laws and Rights of Nature
1.4. Summary
2. The Social Contract
2.1. Nature and Purpose of the Contract
2.2. The Sovereign
2.3. Liberty and Equality
2.4. The Problem of Consent
2.5. The Impact of Classical Social Contract Theories
Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines and compares the classical social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, focusing on their differing interpretations of the state of nature and the subsequent justifications for political authority.
- Comparative analysis of human nature as defined by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.
- Exploration of liberty, equality, and the concept of natural rights in the pre-political state.
- Evaluation of the social contract as a mechanism for establishing and legitimizing political rule.
- Investigation into the nature of the sovereign and the necessity of consent in civil society.
- Assessment of the historical and contemporary impact of these classical contractarian frameworks.
Excerpt from the Book
1.1. Human Nature
It is probably fair to assume that state and society impose several restrictions on natural human behaviour or even alter it. If an accurate assessment could be made about human nature without these restrictions or alterations it would not only be possible to develop a better understanding of the state of nature, but also to theorise about the form of society that is best suited to accommodate original human behaviour. Not surprisingly, there are considerable differences regarding human nature among the three philosophers examined here.
According to Hobbes, human nature is characterised by a constant drive for felicity. Humans will always desire something and felicity can only arise if these desires are achieved. Hardly anyone would deny that humans have desires but do we continuously crave for them? Is it not conceivably that there are periods in a human existence where those desires do not affect our behaviour? For Hobbes, the answer is no. Borrowing from Galileo’s principle of the conservation of motion he believes humans are essentially restless. Our desires act like a force upon us and will do so until substituted by a greater force: a new desire. In order to gain what they desire humans have to be powerful. Hobbes defines power as “one’s present means to obtain some future apparent Good”. It follows from this that to satisfy their desires and to achieve felicity humans not only have to be powerful but also have to constantly increase their power because one “cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more”. Thus, Hobbes depicts humans as naturally autonomous individuals who are egoistically only concerned with themselves.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Provides the historical and philosophical context for social contract theories, highlighting the fundamental question of justifying political rule.
1. The State of Nature: Analyzes the theoretical condition of humanity before the existence of government, establishing the baseline for the three philosophers' arguments.
1.1. Human Nature: Explores the differing perspectives of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on the innate characteristics and motivations of human beings.
1.2. Liberty and Equality in the State of Nature: Compares how each philosopher perceives the natural freedoms and parity of individuals prior to civil society.
1.3. Laws and Rights of Nature: Examines the natural entitlements and governing principles that exist in the state of nature according to each theorist.
1.4. Summary: Synthesizes the conditions of human life in the state of nature and the implications for the transition to civil society.
2. The Social Contract: Discusses the transition from the state of nature to a formal body politic through the mechanism of mutual agreement.
2.1. Nature and Purpose of the Contract: Defines the constitutional objective of the social contract as a tool for security, morality, or order.
2.2. The Sovereign: Addresses the question of who should rule, the extent of their authority, and the structural form of the government.
2.3. Liberty and Equality: Investigates the status of individual freedom and equality once a civil society is established.
2.4. The Problem of Consent: Explores the difficulties regarding the actualization and legitimacy of the consent given by citizens.
2.5. The Impact of Classical Social Contract Theories: Reviews the enduring influence of these theories on modern political philosophy and international relations.
Key Terms
Social Contract, State of Nature, Political Philosophy, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Human Nature, Sovereign, Liberty, Equality, Consent, Civil Society, Natural Rights, General Will, Political Obligation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this assignment?
The paper provides a comparative analysis of the classical social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, evaluating how they justify the existence of the state and political obligation.
Which philosophers are primarily analyzed in this work?
The work focuses on Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau as the central figures of the classical social contract tradition.
What is the primary objective of the research?
The primary goal is to determine how these three philosophers use the concept of the "state of nature" to argue for specific forms of government and to resolve the problem of political legitimacy.
What methodology does the author use?
The author employs a comparative philosophical analysis, tracing the evolution of key concepts like human nature, liberty, and consent through the foundational texts of the three philosophers.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main sections cover the state of nature, the nature and purpose of the social contract, the role of the sovereign, the state of liberty and equality in civil society, and the problematic nature of consent.
Which keywords best describe this study?
The study is characterized by keywords such as Social Contract, State of Nature, Political Obligation, Sovereignty, and the respective names of the three philosophers.
How does Hobbes differ from Locke in their view of the sovereign?
Hobbes advocates for a near-absolute sovereign to maintain security and avoid a state of war, whereas Locke argues for a limited government with separated powers to protect individual natural rights.
What is Rousseau's concept of the "general will"?
The general will for Rousseau is a superior moral law representing the collective interest of the community, which citizens must follow to be "forced to be free" within a civil society.
What is the author's conclusion regarding these theories?
The author concludes that while these theories are not empirically perfect or historically definitive, they remain milestones in political philosophy that initiated an essential, ongoing debate about human social existence.
- Citation du texte
- Sebastian Erckel (Auteur), 2008, Classical Social Contract Theory, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/126144
