Two Views of the Social Contract

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704) were two

influential English philosophers. The concept of the social contract was
crucial to both men's political philosophy. They both strongly rejected the
divine right of kings theory, but their ideas about the foundation of the
social contract were very different. Although both men had a profound and
lasting impact on political thought, Locke's ideas had a much greater
impact on the American and French Revolutions of the late eighteenth
century.
Hobbes' political thought was heavily influenced by the English Civil War
(1642–1651). A peaceful and cautious man, Hobbes loathed the violence of
that conflict and the subsequent execution of King Charles I. He
desperately wanted England to avoid another disastrous civil war in the
future. A strong government is essential. Without government, people live
in a state of nature characterized by chaos and bloodshed. Hobbes wrote
that the life in the state of nature was "nasty, brutish, and short." In other
words, he believed people were naturally avaricious and violent. People
need to be assured of their personal safety above all else, Hobbes thought.
Therefore, the people should agree to forfeit their freedoms in exchange
for this safety. They must obey imperfect and even wicked rulers:
revolutions are only justified if the monarch tries to kill his subjects.
Locke expected much more of kings, and he had a a more positive view of
human beings in the state of nature. According to him, monarchs had to
do much more than merely provide personal safety: they also had to be
just. Men had "natural rights" that the monarch had to respect. (For
example, people had a right to private property.) A monarch who failed to
respect those rights should be overthrown. Some of Locke's ideas appear
in America's Declaration of Independence: "all men are created equal."
Also, men had a right to life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." In
other words, the American colonists had the right to declare independence
because Britain's King George III was denying them their natural rights.