See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339212849

Comparison of Social Contract Theory of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas

Hobbes, and John Locke

Research · February 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18057.19041/1

CITATIONS READS
0 27,219

1 author:

Rajab Taieb
Leibniz Institute for Educational Media | Georg Eckert Institute
11 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rajab Taieb on 17 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparison of Social Contract Theory by Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke

Although in the concept of the Social Contract Theory written by the three
philosophers- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke – there are
many similarities as it easily can be understood from its name, still there are differences
in the opinions of these authors regarding the State of Nature, the factors that made
people to enter into the contract and the design of the contract enforcement
mechanism. In this paper, I will briefly discuss these differences using ‘The Social
Contract, Leviathan and Two Treatises of Government’ books and will also show how
these philosophers support different forms of government through the Social Contract
Theory.

According to the authors, the concept of the social contract is that in the past
people were living in the State of Nature which lacked governments and laws to
regulate them and their lives. Thus, in that condition, they faced hardships, miseries,
and irregularities and to overcome the problems, they entered into agreements.
However, for Rousseau and Locke, the State of Nature was not as unpleasant as for
Hobbes. Rousseau argues that in the State of Nature people get many advantages from
nature which they cannot have it in the civil state. “In this civil state he is deprived of
many advantages that he got from nature, but he gets enormous benefits in return”
(Rousseau, 1993, p.9). According to Rousseau, what people losses by the social
contract is their natural liberty and unrestricted right to anything they want and can get.
But what they gain are civil liberty and the ownership of everything they possess. For
Rousseau, a man enters into the contract for gaining more power to preserve what he
has and to do that he has to submit his will to the ‘General Will or to the sovereign’, a
kind of alienation. But Rousseau argues that this submission happens in a way that man
remains as free as before. “Each man giving himself to everyone gives himself to no-
one; and the right over himself that other get is matched by the right that he gets over
each of them” (Rousseau, 1993, p.7). Therefore, the states and laws are formed by the
‘sovereign’ and the state has to protect the natural rights of its citizens. But when it fails,
citizens have the right and occasionally the duty to pull out their support from, or even
take actions against the state. The state has to ensure the freedom and liberties of the
man in all circumstances (Rousseau, 1993). Therefore, Rousseau put individuals first
than the state.

For Hobbes, however, the State of Nature was as unpleasant as he called life in
that condition full of fear and selfishness where people live in a chaotic condition of
permanent fear. According to Hobbes, life in the State of Nature was ‘solitary’, ‘poor’,
‘brutish’, and ‘short’ (Hobbes, 2017). “Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live
without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is
called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man” (Hoobes, 2017, p.77).

1
For Hobbes, people’s natural desire for security and protection made them to enter into
the contract and to achieve this, they should surrender all their rights and freedoms to
an authority or whom they must obey. Thus, the authority becomes the absolute head
and subjects have no rights against the authority. However, Hobbes argues that people
enter into such a contract due to their ‘rationality and self-interest’ for the sake of
preservation of peace, life, and prosperity (Hobbes, 2017). Therefore, one would argue
that Hobbes was a supporter of absolutism. And here a problem arises that what
guarantees the subjects’ rights against the authority? To protect the subjects and their
rights, Hobbes placed moral obligations on the authority who shall be bound by natural
law.

Locke in contrary to Hobbes considers the State of Nature not that much
miserable arguing that it was a state of perfect and complete liberty where everyone
could conduct his life the way he sees best. In the State of Nature, all people were
equal, independent and free from the interference of others (Locke, 2003). Although
there was no civil authority to maintain order, people were bound to some morality.
Therefore, the State of Nature according to Locke was ‘pre-political’, but not ‘pre-moral’.
One would ask why one should leave such a joyful and relatively peaceful situation?
Locke argues that due to the absence of law, impartial judges and executive power, the
property was not safe in the State of Nature. Thus, people decided to enter into a
contract for the sake of property preservation. In Locke’s view, people do not surrender
all their rights to the authority, but only the right to preserve property and enforce the
law. As a result, people retain the right to life, liberty, and estate. So, government and
law are created to protect the natural rights of people and they are valid until they do
their jobs (Locke, 2003).

To conclude, the State of Nature was a state of war for Hobbes, but a state of
relatively peaceful, equality and independence for Locke and Rousseau. Preservation of
life, property and individual prosperous are counted as key factors by the three
philosophers that forced people to enter into the contract. While Hobbes says that
whatever the state does is right and just for its citizens and support absolute authority
without titling any value in individuals, Locke argues that the state’s main job is to
ensure justice is secured while Rousseau asserts that state in all circumstances must
ensure freedom and liberty of its citizens. So, Rousseau and Lock put more support and
value on people than the government, while Hobbes does the opposite. To further
conclude, by the Social Contract Theory, Hobbes supports an absolutist system, while
Locke supports constitutionalism and Rousseau a representative form of government.

2
 References:
Hobbes, T. (2017). Leviathan. (I. J. Jeremy Kleidosty, Ed.) London: Andrew Crooke.
doi:10.4324/9781912282166.
Locke, J. (2003). Two Treaties of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. (I.
Shapiro, Ed.) London, United Kingdom: New Haven and London.
Rousseau, J.-J. (1993). The Social Contract (Vol. 13). (S. R. Blundell, Ed.) Ottawa,
Canada: Health law in Canada. doi:10.1002/9781118011690.ch7.

View publication stats