Lack Of Virtue In Thomas Hobbes Social Contract

Thomas Hobbes recognized the lack of virtue in people. The motives for the barbaric behavior of people is caused because of this lack of virtue according to Hobbes. The conditions of the state of nature really optimize the barbaric behavior of the individual. Taking away the contract leaves society with no laws or moral ethics. People can do as they please and have what they want. Defending these rights is your duty and there is no person to defend those rights for you. Hobbes recognizes that with the social contract in order the people are more civilized. The social contract being that the people are under control of the laws of a sovereign. The sovereign gives the people a sense of security under their rule. With a sense of security the people then believe in the rule of the sovereign. Following the sovereign can implement laws for the people to abide too. These acts would cause for a stronger society and a less …show more content…
The difference between the two negative liberties is that Locke’ social contract has guaranteed liberty. The ability for the people to do as they please as long as the law doesn’t say otherwise still applies. Negative liberty gives society the ability for economic gain in Locke’s social contract. More economic gain would be present in the social contract of Locke. With the guaranteed liberty added to the contract it gives for more variability. Rousseau defines that the state of nature of people before the social contract was implemented as noble savages. The people were free and happy in the society they were living within. Rousseau states the social contract drove people to feel that they were not equal under Locke’s and Hobbes’s social contract. Rousseau states that the society compares themselves to each other in the sense of material positions or social status. The social contract that Locke and Hobbes developed seemed to be the cause of the