Estrella, John Carlos S.

2019114881
2nd Year – BA in Political Science PSC1202–Modern Political Theories

Concept Mapping
 The Social Contract Theory is a political justification for the power of the few over the
many. It replaced “divine right of kings” after a sufficient amount of people had determined it to
be absurd during the Enlightenment period and had stopped believing it.

Subsequently, the kings required another avocation for having overbearing control over
individuals. That is the place where Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and others came in. There is very
little distinction among Rousseau and Hobbes vis-à-vis Social Contract Theory on the grounds that
each endeavors to legitimize the force of the many of over the few and each reverts to utilizing
problematic theory to do as such, with Rousseau (1775) accepting people agree to surrendering
their capacity to government while Hobbes (1651) hung his social contract on pretty much the
same claptrap speculation.

In other words, each person’s agreement to the social contract had been assumed by both
Rousseau and Hobbes based entirely on their speculation that “that’s what humans are used to.”
However, both Rousseau and Hobbes provided a series of syllogistic statements through which
they reach that conclusion - but, those statements are conclusory because they lack facts proving
them, and, thus, are pure speculation. Coming to age in the Enlightenment period when reason
was determined to be both the tool and manner in which humans deal with their various issues,
neither Rousseau nor Hobbes had a choice other than to pretend that a “social contract” was
possible in the wake of the people’s awakening concerning the absurdity of the previous
justification for tyrannical power, “divine right of kings”. From there, each hoped the people would
not think through their contentions - because they knew they failed when subjected to logic. That
worked for a few hundred years. But, no one who actually thinks through the “social contract”
proposed by Hobbes and Rousseau has been able to justify it logically.

Furthermore, Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that if men were like Gods, they should be
enabled to freely rule themselves. Moral uprightness equals to more freedom. As Rousseau
(1775) said, “We are born good but are corrupted by society.” But if they are sinful and corrupted
by society to the path of immorality, they should surrender their freedoms to an enlightened despot
or benevolent dictator to guide them to the path of righteousness, lawfulness, and moral justness.
Thomas Hobbes assumed that the government should be ruled by an indomitable and
intimidating Dictator or Leviathan so as to keep everyone in place and check so that everyone
serves their role in promoting the common good for the organic whole (Fascism). John Locke
furthermore suggested that when people surrender themselves to the state in exchange for a social
contract to protect and keep them safe (safety and security), the only right they have to surrender
is the right to dispense pre-judicial punishments or penalties upon the perpetrators. For that
will, according to Locke, be dealt with by the government’s judiciary as a part of the promise of
the social contract. Otherwise, all their other fundamental rights and liberties are protected or
untouched by the government.
 The most essential distinction is that for Hobbes the agreement to make the public
authority (or sovereign) is the thing that makes the general public exists in any case, while,
it is absolutely a Rousseau's scrutinize of Hobbes that a general public can exist and exists
before the public authority. It follows from this distinction that for Hobbes government
essentially need not bother with some other avocation however that it keeps the general public
existing, and individuals out of the condition of nature, though for Rousseau all administration and
each augmentation of government, and each law, should consistently be advocated by the general
public.

Aside from this major difference, their theories are largely the same. The famous book by
Rousseau, The Social Contract (1760) argues that government is only valid when it reflects the
Will of the People. Well — that’s precisely what Hobbes had said, too. The People’s Will could
be expressed in a War, a Civil War, or a Revolution — on this both Hobbes and Rousseau could
also agree. At the end of the violence, however, whatever the People formally settle upon
— that would be a genuine “social contract.” Hobbes seems to a pessimist and Rousseau seemed
to be an optimist — but both met in the middle. Social Contract today is nothing other than
a national Constitution. The Social Contract is “signed” by every citizen (or subject) every time
they recite the national pledge of allegiance. (A verbal pledge is a legal assent in common law.)

References:

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2019, August 6). Social contract. Encyclopedia

Britannica. Retrieved March 25, 2021, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-
contract

Hobbes, T (1651). The Leviathan. Selections on the State of Nature, State of War and formation
of the State. Retrieved March 25, 2021, from
http://courses.washington.edu/hsteu302/Hobbes%20selections%20(edited).htm

Kain, P. (1990). Rousseau, the General Will, and Individual Liberty. History of Philosophy
Quarterly, 7(3), 315-334. Retrieved March 25, 2021, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27743941