Datta 1

Ishani Datta

Prof. Rashmi Singh

Political Science

13th September 2022

Hobbes and Locke’s Perspectives of Consent of the Governed and Political Authority

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English thinker and was one of the pioneers

providing the basis for political thought of his time. One of the most primordial views he put

forward, which he was a strong supporter of, was the idea of a state. He describes this state as

one that represents all the people who have surrendered their rights to the government. He

expresses this idea in the form of a collective sovereign, representative of all who conform to

this state, and a government that holds absolute power over the people. The concept of giving

up control to this body of individuals, law and order can prevail and be preserved.

Hobbes describes this as an artificial state created through collective consent,

completely giving up control to the state, who would govern with complete absolutism,

where all individuals surrender and their rights to revolt and rebel against the government.

Hobbes believed this to be the only way in which bloodshed on both sides of this society, the

monarchy and the parliament could be prevented, and this prevention would be maintained.

His justification included the state of nature, where he believes that every individual would

be consumed by selfish needs and aspirations. He thinks that in an all-natural, unregulated

world of nature, void of civilisation and order, human beings would not hesitate to trample

over one another in the quest for fulfilment of their own desires. Hobbes lays down the

foundations for anarchy in the event the state of nature prevailed. He says that everyone

should come together to endeavour for peace and ensure harmony amongst individuals by

surrendering to a common authority which he later titled the Leviathon or the state. This

would be a result of laying down arms and rights, thereby forming an absolute sovereign
 Datta 2

state. Under the Leviathon, the only right the people would be given was the right to defend

life. Through this, Hobbes believed he was arguing for a minimal state. He explains that good

laws are like hedges; their intention is not to be an obstruction, but to act as a guide to

navigate life in society and navigate politics.

One of the most primary drawbacks of Hobbes’ idea of the state and the Leviathon,

was the absolute capitulation of basic rights to a governmental body, which is expected to

uphold their rights and interests. Guaranteeing this in such a venture could often prove

unsuccessful because of the multitude of variables that come into play. By law, if all citizens

of a nation had to surrender all their rights, except the right to defend life, to the Leviathon,

their sense of self, freedom, and ability to think and make their own judgements would be

taken away, forcefully sacrificing their humanity. Human beings have a natural thirst for

power, and when given this level of power, it is only natural and human to let it spiral out of

control to the point where people follow a leader or a group of leaders without question..

John Locke (1632-1704) was an English thinker and philosopher, who is largely

hailed as the Father of Classical Liberalism. This form of liberalism is concerned primarily

with the protection of the individual and the individual’s rights and liberties. Locke was one

of the foremost believers in the power of individual autonomy, in the transcendence of the

individual over the group, as he provides religious justifications for the same. His 1661 Essay

on Toleration talks about the relationship between an individual and their God. Religious

conscience is the choice of the beholder and no one else. Even if the sovereign commands the

obedience of the individual, no one can force them to prescribe to a God not of their choice, it

is about the afterlife which the sovereign has no jurisdiction over. Locke clearly establishes

that political power is not about a difference in station and stature, which exists to act as bars

against those who do not know any better. Political power is something that is shared
 Datta 3

between all people, because he believes that all individuals have the propensity for rationality

and logic.

Locke’s ideas about the state are deeply rooted in the equality of all individuals under

the law, and most importantly, under God. He justifies these ideas by writing that everyone is

equal in nature; one cannot exert power over another or harm them, because they are the

results of the workmanship of one creator: God. Each individual exists to do God’s work, not

for each other’s pleasure, and no one should be harmed at the behest of another. Locke also

defined consent to government through active participation in social activities, being a

member of society essentially. He takes about living a fulfilling life by simply ‘taking what

you need and leaving enough for everyone else’. This idea of equality, ensuring that everyone

has the same advantages and disadvantages was a formidable way of moving towards an

equal society. Locke lay emphasis on the people’s right to overthrow the government, when

they are not acting in the interests of the people. He believes in society’s right to elect another

government, one that would fiercely safeguard the interests of the people.

Locke’s biggest drawback was the vagueness of his ideals. ‘Take what you need’ is a

very ambiguous statement, which doesn’t quantify what is covered by ‘need’, and what

extends to ‘greed’. He also assumed that being a participant in society was grounds to assume

their consent to an elected government. This assumption, void of facts was a ground for

questioning and concern, because even without a verbal or physical enthusiastic agreement,

assuming one act to mean another is morally inaccurate. Locke was also a supporter of the

patriarchy excluding women from any and all decisions that were to be taken, especially if

they concern them. He believed in men having the rights to control and tame women.

Both Locke and Hobbes provided their ideas regarding society, the state, and the

divisions and distributions of political authority. Hobbes represented absolute authority where

only one body of government has the right to govern and control the people. Locke, on the
 Datta 4

other hand, devises methods where governmental authority is minimal, and only focused on

protecting individual liberties and properties. Both thinkers have merits in their theories, but

they did not think of these theories in a practical sense. These theories were only theoretically

possible, and not exactly feasible in reality.

 Datta 5

Rousseau’s Critique of the Social Contract; Replacing it with the General Will

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was a philosopher, writer, and composer of

Genevan origin. He is globally acclaimed for his romantic beliefs, the power of nature, and

the belief that man is born free everywhere and yet is in chains everywhere. His ideas about

the state and political authority are extremely foundational and almost primal. His theory for

the state was extremely different to his predecessors. He believed that representative

government should not exist, and that all individuals of a society should actively participate

and create laws and rules by themselves, for themselves. Being a romantic, Rousseau

imagined society to be the most ideal and utopian it could be, leaving no room for logical and

realistic perceptions and manifestations of this ideal in reality.

A large part of Rousseau’s argument rest upon the detrimental impact of civilisation

on the human mind and perception. He believed that becoming ‘civilised’ is what ruined our

humanity. The idea of civilisation has inculcated a deep-seated competition within each

individual, and ultimately their goal is reduced to proving oneself to be better than all others.

This competition forces people to forget their compassion for their fellow humans, and lose

themselves in pursuit of societal acceptance through success over one’s peers. Rousseau

completely condemns this notion, and instead says that humanity needs to go back to nature,

and gain back the simplicity of a natural life. In his mind, this idea of great advances in

technology, lifestyle, and overall development has not yielded any meaningful results.

Instead, it has accentuated the harm caused by civilisation.

Rousseau also puts forward the feigned notions of freedom that people often inhabit

within themselves through positions and economic growth. He recommends an anti-

enlightenment movement, to go back to the primal nature of existence, as he questioned the

 Datta 6

necessity of present-day knowledge. He also proposed that children be allowed to play in

nature until the age of 12, before being sent through the education system. He explains the

new structure of education in which priority is given to developing and cultivating

compassion, rather than inculcating material knowledge. Rousseau heavily emphasises a

world where the concept of competition is absent, and every individual lives with one another

in harmony. In 1755, he published the ‘Discourse on Inequality’, where he writes how

civilisation removed everyone from natural sentiments, and depriving every individual of

self-love. Rousseau writes that it is something everyone is born with, but society and its

inequalities and insecurities forces one to lose it to the fast paced competition in the world.

He equates the ideality of human existence to that of an animal’s existence; knowledge is

absent, everyone coexists peacefully, and the concept of self-improvement, which he calls

perfectability, is lost and is inapplicable.

Rousseau explains that human corruption begins with a desire for materialistic

possessions and positions. This would bring social validation, which would essentially only

be based on an individual’s ability to attain certain levels of commendation. These aspirations

vary between people, and as a result, the ones who act on it gain wealth and prosperity, while

some people do not gain the same advancement and are thus poor. The act of acquiring power

over another human being is the reason why people lose their natural liberty. Rousseau lays

emphasis on education bringing individuals back to nature and sentiments, focusing on

developing a moral sense, rather than knowledge and the ability to advance in the material

sense.

Rousseau highly disproves of the social contract, where he believes that nobody

should be elected to represent the public interest. He shuts down this idea, and instead,

provides the idea of every individual having a say in the manner in which society function,

the concept of the General Will. He believes that this would guarantee truly democratic and
 Datta 7

revolutionary freedom to all individuals. The goal Rousseau intended to reach with the

General Will was to form a state, to live by laws created by the people, for the people, that

the General Will comprises the will of all individuals who subscribe to a single country’s or

nation’s identity. He explains that the General Will is general in its origin, object, and form,

and it’s goal can only be achieved through economic equality. The idea behind this notion is

to ensure the voice of every individual in every decision that is taken with regards to this

individual and all others. Everyone should benefit equally, and everyone should have an

equal say in democracy. Every law should be in the form of general propositions, and not

aimed at any specific party, or have any special mentions. No individual would be rich

enough to buy another, and no individual would be poor enough to sell themselves, as they

would all subscribe to a social religion of equality.

Rousseau’s concept of the General Will was intended to ensure equal say of all

individuals in all decisions. The intention is pure and well-thought of, however, in its

application, it is faulted at multiple levels. Rousseau’s first idea about people having to go

back to a time pre-civilisation and pre-enlightenment is a dangerous idea as it promotes

acting on primal instincts. These instincts are morally incorrect, as they often include

violence, and being civilised is what teaches individuals on how to control it and be able to

avoid acting on it. Rousseau does not take into consideration these primal desires and

temptations to do wrong if human beings are to be in the state of nature. Psychological

growth and development and civilisation taught human beings to keep primal desires at bay

because they were inherently wrong. He did not consider these nuances that put human

beings on the precipice of being criminals, just because they seek to express freedom. Again,

like Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau’s ideas were well-intentioned; however, they can only be

applicable in theory. To apply it in reality would warrant several changes and reevaluations

of this theory, for it to be applied and for it to succeed in society.

 Datta 8

Works Cited

Charvet, John et. al. “The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and

Rousseau” Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1998

Jha, Shefali. “Western Political Thought: From the Ancient Greeks to Modern Times”.

Pearson, 2018, pp. 103-161.

Bennett, Jonathan. “Early Modern Texts: The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau”.

2017