Comparing Locke And Rousseau's Social Contract

1081 Words 4 Pages
Argument #2 Social Contract
Social contracts are an individual 's moral and ethical political obligations, which are dependent upon a contract or agreement. It addresses questions of the origin of the society, and the legitimacy of the authority the state holds over an individual. For Locke, since the state of nature is a state of liberty where people recognize the presence of the Law of Nature and, therefore, do not harm one another, the state of war differs from the state of nature.
Property is essential in Locke 's argument for civil government and the contract that establishes it. This is because the reason human beings abandon the state of nature is to ensure greater protection of their property, not only concerning material goods, but also their bodies. In fact, Locke referred to the state of nature as the "Golden Age," which was
…show more content…
A ruler should be aware of the power the public holds against him, as the people are the ones who formed the government, thus, they retain the ability to dissolve it. Any unlawful rebellion against the people can alter or abolish the legislative or executive power. Thus, a good ruler is one who can distinguish between actions that promote the public good and those that destroy it.
Likewise, Rousseau agrees with Locke that one enters civil society to protect property rights. This shift is truly when a non-societal man becomes a social being. However, unlike Locke, who provides a rather optimistic view of the social contract, Rousseau considers the social contract a moral disaster that is catastrophic towards achieving human happiness. In fact, he believes this entire idea a scam, as the social contract is only beneficial towards a small percentage of the elite population that has managed to convince the poor in assisting them to protect their

Related Documents