Social Contract Theories Of Thomas Hobbes And John Locke

Good Essays
Both social contract theorist, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) have similar ideas on the relations between state and its citizens. Thomas Hobbes provides a hypothetical account of the universe before sovereign(s), which is known to be the state of nature. University of Auckland philosopher Davies provides an alternative form to the state of nature, radical state of nature. Davies suggests that in this form, all individuals are in their natural condition and not subject to a third party or political ruler. Hence why all the individuals are self-ruling. Also there is no in-justice within this form of the state of nature (Hobbes ch. 13), due to the non-existence of a united sovereign. In the De Cive Hobbes states that what …show more content…
William Uzgalis states that a legitimate government is established by the consent of those instituted. Also William Uzgalis goes on to state that those that agree are therefore transferring their rights of judgment and punishment (John Locke sec. 4.3). In Thomas Hobbes Leviathan individuals transfers all their rights to the sovereign, which is called social contract (ch. 14). Both Locke and Hobbes portrays the sovereign to obtain full power from the individuals, which creates a platonic system ‘Hierarchy’. The monarchy and government are right at the top, advisers, individual representative, their families and then slaves. Having a hierarchy builds specific roles and functions of all. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both describe the sovereign(s) to contain peace and just among their citizens, by protecting their rights. Also to interpret Holy Scripture. Whereas advises is their right-hand person with little in-put to their final decisions and citizens are supposed to be obedience to their commands and are not permitted to revolt. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes idea on sovereign(s) relationship with their citizens can be understood in following statement: Parent and young child. Its due to sovereign acting as a parent with all their demands, consequences and leadership. However, citizens are similar to young children, being told what holy scripture to read, …show more content…
Leading to the assumptions that citizens are not supposed to revolt against their sovereign. However only under three conditions: if subject’s life is at risk, by decision and if all individuals supports their decision to rebel. This can occur when the sovereign is fully not upholding their role in maintain peace among citizens of the state, in which they are inclined to rebel. When rebelling Thomas Hobbes in the Leviathan argues that it ought to be by decision and not by breaching their contract (ch.16). It due to the subjects are contracted to him and their ruler is not. By doing this, it allows the sovereign to exercise full power among his people and not be obliged to anyone or contract. However, subjects are allowed to rebel by individual decision. Decision based on whether or not the ruler is functioning by his full potential in maintaining peace within society. Also individual are supposed to get support from the majority, or else they do not stand a chance against. According to John Locke account, citizen of the state is only permitted to revolt against their government by breach of contract. John Locke argues that sovereign contracts with their citizens to protect their property rights and maintain peace. It allows the government to have obligations that may limit their power. For instances: the government are not allowed to

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Hobbes believed that people can only live in peace when they turn over all rights to a sovereign. Hobbes social contract states that no matter what, you must abide by the sovereign, and nothing they do can violate the contract. Locke believed that if a sovereign starts to have too much power, the people have the right to rebel and fight for their rights. Hobbes views the sovereign as almost Godlike, to never be questioned and always obeyed. Locke on the other hand, follows a more modern view on government, power should not be absolute, and the people have the right to rebel if they feel they are being mistreated.…

    • 1195 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    John Locke and Hobbes also agree that citizens may revolt against authority under some conditions. Hobbes, citizen is permitted to only if only their live it at risk. In determining whether their live is at risk and their ruler cannot protect them no more, it is then by the decision that their able to revolt against authority. However, only if their decision is supported by the majority. In John Locke theory, citizens are able to rebel against their government by the breach of contract: inability to protect their natural right of property.…

    • 2054 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Their power is limited to making collective decisions for the best of society. Individuals in society should be responsible for electing the head as a democracy and absolute power should not be given to one or a few individuals. Individuals should be able to own their own property and make the choices they want as long as they follow as set of regulations that apply equally to society and the rule of law exists. I think absolutism is flawed as individuals in society do not own their own property and the sovereign has the ability to take control of what individuals have earned. I agree with John Locke’s ideas about ownership and the protection of one’s property being sacrosanct as individuals have worked hard to earn what they have and they should have full responsibility of what theirs.…

    • 1491 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Hobbes Vs Rousseau Essay

    • 858 Words
    • 4 Pages

    If someone disobeys the law it is best solved by the popular opinion and believes in the direct interaction of the people with the laws they must obey. Rousseau uses collectivism as a way for people to actively present their own views while also using This collectivism is best exemplified in his definition of the “general will”. He calls for all members of society to subordinate their own will for the general goal set forth by society. Rousseau does not believe that surrendering freedom to a leader provides any benefit and encourages intervention by the individual on a political level. With Rousseau believes that these goals can only be realized with the assumption of a great leader into the seat of power.…

    • 858 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Jefferson writes, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights (Jefferson) He is saying in this line that God is saying it is our right to be free. The intent of the Declaration of Independence was separation it also attempted to embrace that government itself was not evil, unlike the monarch of Great Britain. Different and more effective forms of government would allow for a stronger established independence. The people must consent to be…

    • 1939 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    And they would be unable to pursue any goals that required stability and widespread cooperation with other humans. Locke’s claim is that government rose from this turmoil. Individuals, realizing the benefits, decided to relinquish some of their rights to a central authority while retaining other rights. This took the form of a contract. In agreement for relinquishing certain rights, individuals would receive protection from physical harm, security for their possessions, and the ability to interact and cooperate with other humans in a stable environment.…

    • 737 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The society has to find ways to keep their freedoms while also becoming a community to protect their freedoms. Rousseau’s idea was to create a true democracy in which the rules and regulations of the society were chose by the majority and general will of the people. Those who disagreed were forced to follow the general will and if they did not want to they could leave the state. The government would be “entrusted with administering the general will” of the public in order to keep everyone on the same page (Costly). He favored a direct democracy where the people would be heard directly by the government instead of through elected officials.…

    • 1276 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Without states, laws, and orders, life is solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish. He did not believe that people could do good deeds for no rewards, although he believed people had it in them to try to be good. I think that this is a harsh view. Hobbes reasoned that human behavior functioned according to laws. He believed in a social compact, where people would voluntarily create the government to rule them.…

    • 1312 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    These rights belong to people “by nature” as it is stated in his book. According to Locke, the people in a country are the main source of power which means the government makes decisions on their behalf, therefore, if the government does not protect the people's natural rights then we, the people, have the right to overthrow it. John Locke quoted, “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.” He believed that the people have the right to have their freedom and he helped set the foundation for this when our country wrote The Decleration of Independance. Nevertheless, John Locke had a huge impact on our world today which shapes our country for who we…

    • 754 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Rousseau wanted the people to be able to govern themselves because of the negative way he saw the King govern his citizens. The King made decisions without thinking about how they affected his people; he never took their opinions into consideration and Rousseau believes that people should be in control of how the government affects their lives. I understand what he is trying to do, but there needs to be a more controlled system in place. Another downfall about his vision of governance is: what is the group to do when a law does not apply to everyone? Should they enforce it anyways because it is for the good of the majority, or would that be breaking the general will?…

    • 1580 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays