Running head: SOCIAL CONTRACT 1

Social Contract according to Rousseau and Locke

Name

Institution
SOCIAL CONTRACT 2

Rousseau’s views

In his work, Jacques Rousseau addresses the issue of human freedom and explains

how it later transformed (Rousseau, 1816). He holds the view that the state of nature provides

men with enviable total freedom, but as a result of obstacles to human preservation, it

becomes necessary to live in communities. As a result, human freedom becomes restrained,

primarily due to the social ills that originated from this new style of living. Rousseau believes

that social contract offers a solution on how every member of the community can remain free

as before. He acknowledged that as long as private property and laws existed, individuals can

never be entirely free in modern society as they were in the state of nature (Rousseau, 1816).

In regard to this, it is crucial to have a general will or the will of the majority of the citizens

and which every individual is supposed to follow. The general will intend to make

individuals dependant on each other, and offending one member should be considered an

offense against all the citizens. In addition, the state is supposed to control all the goods as a

way of assuring its members of legitimate possession of goods.

Every good government must consider the freedom of all its citizens as its primary

objective. The citizens should be allowed to participate in the governance process. In this

regard, the only will that should determine the action that the government should take is that

of the general public (Rousseau, 1816). When a government acts on its own without

considering the needs of its citizens, it is unable to fulfill its purpose, which involves acting

as an intermediary between the sovereign and the subjects. Also, every state needs to have a

religion in which all citizens devote their duty. However, individuals should be left to decide

their own religious doctrine, and the state should not force people to accept any religion

(Rousseau, 1816).
SOCIAL CONTRACT 3

The contrast of the views of John Locke and Jacques Rousseau

John Locke is another theorist who gives a different perspective of the social contract.

Unlike Rousseau, who considers the social contract to have developed as a requirement for

the legitimacy of property rights, Locke argued that property rights preceded the

establishment of the state. According to Locke, the property is a natural right that existed

before any collective agreement (Laskar, 2013). While Rousseau believes that the state

should be responsible for controlling all the goods, Locke believes that the ability of the state

to expropriate should be curtailed. In addition, Locke also argues that the only crucial role of

the state is ensuring that justice is seen to be done. However, Rousseau holds that the

government should, in all circumstances, make sure that freedom of individuals exists.

Rousseau also provides a distinction between government and sovereignty. On the other

hand, Locke does not distinguish between the two (Laskar, 2013).

Locke also argues that legitimate government should be founded on the idea of

separation of powers. He considers legislative power to be supreme in making decisions.

Locke believes that the parliament should be responsible for making laws on what kind of

actions need to be taken for specific punishments. However, this is contrary to Rousseau's

opinion in which he rules out the need to have a representative for the people (Laskar, 2013).

Rousseau argues that citizens should be allowed to participate in governing, which requires

them to be informed sufficiently.  

SOCIAL CONTRACT 4

References

Rousseau, J. J. (1816). Du contract social, ou, Principes du droit politique. Caille et Ravier.

Laskar, M. (2013). Summary of social contract theory by Hobbes, Locke and

Rousseau. Locke and Rousseau (April 4, 2013).