Hobbes , Locke and Rousseau

· What is the concept of State of Nature as given by Thomas Hobbes? Make its
comparison with the Social Contract as presented by John Locke and Rousseau. (Done)

· Compare and contrast the different political philosophies of Hobbes and Locke. How are
these philosophies implemented in present day political systems and policy making?

· Critically examine the concepts of Hobbes and Locke about ‘Social Contract (Done)

· Critically analyse the Social Contract theory of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. (Done)

· Rousseau theory of general will (Done)

· "Life in state of nature was nasty,poor,brutish and short." (Hobbes) (Done)

· "The natural rights of men are right to live,liberty and paoperty".(Locke)

· LOCKE was the father of Modern Liberal Democracy-comment (Done)

· Compare the views of HOBBES,LOCKE and ROUSSEAU on Social Contract and

Sovereignty. (Done)

· How General Will of a Societyii formulated? Discuss in the light of Rousseau's

interpretation, on the conclusions, characteristics and criticism of the Theory of Genera!
Will.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Critically analyse the Social Contract theory of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.

The concept of social contract theory is that in the beginning man lived in the state of nature.
They had no government and there was no law to regulate them. There were hardships and
oppression on the sections of the society. To overcome from these hardships they entered into
two agreements which are:-

1. ╉Pactum Unionis╊; and

2. ╉Pactum Subjectionis╊.

By the first pact of unionis, people sought protection of their lives and property. As, a result of
it a society was formed where people undertook to respect each other and live in peace and
harmony. By the second pact of subjectionis, people united together and pledged to obey an
authority and surrendered the whole or part of their freedom and rights to an authority. The
authority guaranteed everyone protection of life, property and to a certain extent liberty.

Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by Thomas Hobbes

State of Nature

Thomas Hobbes theory of Social Contract appeared for the first time in Leviathan published in the year
1651 during the Civil War in Britain. Thomas Hobbes╆ legal theory is based on ╉Social contract╊.
According to him, prior to Social Contract, man lived in the State of Nature. Man╆s life in the State of
NATURE was one of fear and selfishness. Man lived in chaotic condition of constant fear. Life in the State
of Nature was ╅solitary╆, ╅poor╆, ╅nasty╆, ╅brutish╆, and ╅short╆

Thomas Hobbes begins by noting that all people are basically equal in strength and intelligence. No
single person is so smart or powerful that they cannot be defeated our outwitted by someone else (or
maybe a few others).

That being so, everyone thinks to herself that she is capable of getting whatever she wants. Furthermore,
people only ever act out of self-interest. He writes, “of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is
some good to himself.” This leads to competition of every human against every other for the resources
that we want to acquire.

Hobbes concludes that, in our natural state (pre-government), we humans would be in a constant state
of war and quarrel with one another—everyone competing and fighting for the resources, which are not
abundant enough for everyone to have everything they desire. This natural state of man is one where
people live in “continual fear and danger of violent death” and life itself is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,
and short.”

Basically, Hobbes is saying that mankind is generally selfish, and so, without laws to restrain him, he will
do whatever he needs to in order to sustain his own life (even if it means stealing from or killing others).

Social Contract

Man has a natural desire for security and order. In order to secure selfprotection and self-preservation,
and to avoid misery and pain, man entered into a contract. This idea of self-preservation and self-
protection are inherent in man╆s nature and in order to achieve this, they voluntarily surrendered all
their rights and freedoms to some authority by this contract who must command obedience. As a result
of this contract, the mightiest authority is to protect and preserve their lives and property. This led to the
emergence of the institution of the ╉ruler╊ or ╉monarch╊, who shall be the absolute head. Subjects had
no rights against the absolute authority or the sovereign and he is to be obeyed in all situations however
bad or unworthy he might be. However, Hobbes placed moral obligations on the sovereign who shall be
bound by natural law.

Might is Right

Hence, it can be deduced that, Hobbes was the supporter of absolutism. In the opinion of Hobbes, ╉law
is dependent upon the sanction of the sovereign and the Government without sword are but words and
of no strength to secure a man at all╊. He therefore, reiterated that civil law is the real law because it is
commanded and enforced by the sovereign. Thus, he upheld the principle of ╉Might is always Right╊.

Hobbes impels subjects to surrender all their rights and vest all liberties in the sovereign for preservation
of peace, life and prosperity of the subjects. It is in this way the natural law became a moral guide or
directive to the sovereign for preservation of the natural rights of the subjects. For Hobbes all law is
dependent upon the sanction of the sovereign. All real law is civil law, the law commanded and enforced
by the sovereign and are brought into the world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of
particular men, in such a manner, as they might not hurt but to assist one another and join together
against a common enemy. He advocated for an established order. Hence, Individualism, materialism,
utilitarianism and absolutions are inter-woven in the theory of Hobbes.

Sovereignty:

In Leviathan Hobbes declared— “I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man or to
this assembly of men”.

Another statement runs “Covenants Without sword are but words and of no strength to secure a man at
all”.

His ideas about the state of nature (though imaginary) and the social economic condition of contempo-
rary Britain inspired him to arrive at the conclusion that a sovereign authority with absolute power could
be the only remedy to the uncalled-for situation. For this reason Hobbes made the sovereign power
absolute.

Not only it is absolute, it is indivisible and inalienable. Since Hobbes, these are being treated as the most
important characteristics of sovereignty.

The sovereign power may be vested in the hands of a single person or group of persons. But Hobbes had
always a preference for one person because it is quite easy for one person to exercise absolute power.

Hobbes has suggested that the sovereign will rule with the help of law or terms and conditions of the
covenant and when these will establish their inefficiency or insufficiency he will not hesitate to use arms
or sword.
It is said that he had no weakness or special preference for law. The use of arms or laws fully depends
upon the gravity of the situation. Some critics say that Hobbes had special preference for weapons.

Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by John Locke

State of Nature

John Locke theory of Social Contract is different than that of Hobbes. According to him, man lived in the
State of Nature, but his concept of the State of Nature is different as contemplated by Hobbesian theory.
Locke╆s view about the state of nature is not as miserable as that of Hobbes. It was reasonably good and
enjoyable, but the property was not secure. He considered State of Nature as a ╉Golden Age╊. It was a
state of ╉peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation╊. In that state of nature, men had all the
rights which nature could give them. Locke justifies this by saying that in the State of Nature, the natural
condition of mankind was a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one╆s life as one best sees
fit. It was free from the interference of others. In that state of nature, all were equal and independent.
This does not mean, however, that it was a state of license. It was one not free to do anything at all one
pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in one╆s interest. The State of Nature, although a state
wherein there was no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, was
not a state without morality. The State of Nature was pre-political, but it was not premoral. Persons are
assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and
being bound by the Law of Nature. So, the State of Nature was a ╅state of liberty╆, where persons are
free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference and, because of the Law of Nature
and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful.

Property in State of Nature

Property plays an essential role in Locke╆s argument for civil government and the contract that
establishes it. According to Locke, private property is created when a person mixes his labour with the
raw materials of nature. Given the implications of the Law of Nature, there are limits as to how much
property one can own: one is not allowed to take so more from nature than oneself can use, thereby
leaving others without enough for themselves, because nature is given to all of mankind for its common
subsistence. One cannot take more than his own fair share. Property is the linchpin of Locke╆s argument
for the social contract and civil government because it is the protection of their property, including their
property in their own bodies, that men seek when they decide to abandon the State of Nature.

Social Contract

John Locke considered property in the State of Nature as insecure because of three conditions; they are:-

1. Absence of established law;

2. Absence of impartial Judge; and

3. Absence of natural power to execute natural laws.

Thus, man in the State of Nature felt need to protect their property and for the purpose of protection of
their property, men entered into the ╉Social Contract╊. Under the contract, man did not surrender all
their rights to one single individual, but they surrendered only the right to preserve / maintain order and
enforce the law of nature. The individual retained with them the other rights, i.e., right to life, liberty and
estate because these rights were considered natural and inalienable rights of men.

Having created a political society and government through their consent, men then gained three things
which they lacked in the State of Nature: laws, judges to adjudicate laws, and the executive power
necessary to enforce these laws. Each man therefore gives over the power to protect himself and punish
transgressors of the Law of Nature to the government that he has created through the compact.

According to Locke, the purpose of the Government and law is to uphold and protect the natural rights
of men. So long as the Government fulfils this purpose, the laws given by it are valid and binding but,
when it ceases to fulfil it, then the laws would have no validity and the Government can be thrown out
of power. In Locke’s view, unlimited sovereignty is contrary to natural law.

Locke, in fact made life, liberty and property, his three cardinal rights, which greatly dominated and
influenced the Declaration of American Independence, 1776.

Sovereignty:

Commenting upon Locke’s theory of sovereignty, Barker has said “Locke has no clear view of the nature
or residence of sovereignty. He speaks at one time of the supreme power of the people or in other
words the community; he speaks of another supreme power of the legislature”.

Locke, on the other hand, was an ardent supporter of democracy and constitutionalism and all these are
not consistent with the absoluteness of power in the hands of a single man. That is why he vested
powers in the hands of persons or their representatives.

In Section 135 Locke has said that the legislative power may be placed at the hands of one or more
persons, but it is always supreme power in the commonwealth. Therefore, all other powers or bodies are
subordinate to the legislative authority.

Locke had no intention to grant unlimited power to sovereign authority. He has said in “it is not, nor can
possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people”.

Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau

State of Nature

The natures of state as well as the other aspects of state as found in Rousseau are different from those
of Hobbes and Locke. Rousseau’s state was created not to ensure peace and security or to protect life,
liberty and property its purpose is more sublime that is ethical and ideological.

Rousseau was influenced by Plato. Rousseau’s state is a moral body or organization and its duty is to
make its citizens moral and ideal. Only through the membership of state can individuals become moral
persons and exercise moral principles and objectives.

Jean Jacques Rousseau was a French philosopher who gave a new interpretation to the theory of Social
Contract in his work “The Social Contract” and “ Emile”. According to him, social contract is not a
historical fact but a hypothetical construction of reason. Prior to the Social Contract, the life in the State
of Nature was happy and there was equality among men. As time passed, however, humanity faced
certain changes. As the overall population increased, the means by which people could satisfy their
needs had to change. People slowly began to live together in small families, and then in small
communities. Divisions of labour were introduced, both within and between families, and discoveries
and inventions made life easier, giving rise to leisure time. Such leisure time inevitably led people to
make comparisons between themselves and others, resulting in public values, leading to shame and
envy, pride and contempt. Most importantly however, according to Rousseau, was the invention of
private property, which constituted the pivotal moment in humanity╆s evolution out of a simple, pure
state into one, characterized by greed, competition, vanity, inequality, and vice. For Rousseau the
invention of property constitutes humanity╆s ╅fall from grace╆ out of the State of Nature. For this
purpose, they surrendered their rights not to a single individual but to the community as a whole which
Rousseau termed as ╅general will╆.

Social Contract

According to Rousseau, the original ╅freedom, happiness, equality and liberty╆ which existed in primitive
societies prior to the social contract was lost in the modern civilisation. Through Social Contract, a new
form of social organisation- the state was formed to assure and guarantee rights, liberties freedom and
equality. The essence of the Rousseau╆s theory of General Will is that State and Law were the product of
General Will of the people. State and the Laws are made by it and if the government and laws do not
conform to ╅general will╆, they would be discarded. While the individual parts with his natural rights, in
return he gets civil liberties such as freedom of speech, equality, assembly, etc.
The ╉General Will╊, therefore, for all purposes, was the will of majority citizens to which blind obedience
was to be given. The majority was accepted on the belief that majority view is right than minority view.
Each individual is not subject to any other individual but to the ╅general will╆ and to obey this is to obey
himself. His sovereignty is infallible, indivisible, unrepresentable and illimitable.

Thus, Rousseau favoured people’s sovereignty. His natural law theory is confined to the freedom and
liberty of the individual. For him, State, law, sovereignty, general will, etc. are interchangeable terms.
Rousseau╆s theory inspired French and American revolutions and given impetus to nationalism. He
based his theory of social contract on the principle of ╉Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains╊.

Sovereignty

Let us quote him “…the general will alone can direct the state according to the object for which it was
instituted, i.e., common good”.

In other words, the sovereign power is vested in the general will. And the purpose of the general will is
to translate common good into reality. So every one of the body politic will be governed by the common
good.

If Rousseau is closer in certain respects to Hobbes he is also closer to Locke in other respects. In fact,
Rousseau, in his formulation of sovereignty, combined both Hobbes and Locke.

COMPARISION OF THE THEORY OF SOCIAL CONTRACT OF THOMAS HOBBES, JOHN LOCKE AND JEAN
JACQUES ROUSSEAU

1. Hobbes asserts that without subjection to a common power of their rights and freedoms, men are
necessarily at war. Locke and Rousseau, on the contrary, set forth the view that the state exists to
preserve and protect the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have
the right and sometimes the duty to withdraw their support and even to rebel.

2. Hobbes view was that whatever the state does is just. All of society is a direct creation of the state,
and a reflection of the will of the ruler. According to Locke, the only important role of the state is to
ensure that justice is seen to be done. While Rousseau view is that the State must in all circumstance
ensure freedom and liberty of individuals.

3. Hobbes theory of Social Contract supports absolute sovereign without giving any value to individuals,
while Locke and Rousseau supports individual than the state or the government.

4. To Hobbes, the sovereign and the government are identical but Rousseau makes a distinction between
the two. He rules out a representative form of government. But, Locke does not make any such
distinction.

5. Rousseau╆s view of sovereignty was a compromise between the constitutionalism of Locke and
absolutism of Hobbes

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. "Life in state of nature was nasty,poor,brutish and short." (Hobbes)

Life in a state of nature, according to Hobbes, would be nothing less than a war of all against all
where the life of an individual is “…solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”

Hobbes imagines what life would be like in the “state of nature,” a hypothetical world without
governments.

Hobbes thinks all humans are equal when it comes to matters of survival. Nobody is powerful
enough to be immune to attack. Even the weakest person can kill the strongest if there’s nobody
around to stop them.

In the state of nature, this equal ability to kill each other leads to mistrust. All of your
belongings, and your life itself, might be taken at any moment, because there is no greater
power to stop anyone from attacking you.

Some people would attack you because they need your resources to survive. Others would
attack you because they want to be more powerful than everyone else. Even those who don’t
need or want to attack you are a danger, because they can’t trust that you will leave them
alone, so to be safe, they must attack you first.

The end result is that the state of nature consists of a war of all against all. You must constantly
be ready to fight, even if you’d prefer not to, because the only way to ensure your safety is to go
after others before they go after you.

In this state of nature, projects like farming, manufacturing, science, and the arts are a waste of
time, because there’s no guarantee you’ll enjoy the fruits of your labor. Someone can take it
from you at any moment. Everyone lives in “continual fear and danger of violent death.” It’s
awful!

Hobbes says that if you doubt it would be so bad, think about how you act under your existing
government. Even with the police just a phone call away, don’t you lock your doors when you
sleep at night?

According to Hobbes, if you can’t trust your neighbors to leave you alone even when there are
laws against theft and assault, imagine how much worse it would be if people were free to do
anything they thought was necessary to survive in the state of nature.

Hobbes’s Solution

If life in the state of nature would be intolerable, then what is the solution? To escape the state
of nature, Hobbes proposes that it would be rational to establish a government.

Hobbes thinks that humans are rational creatures, and we can all see that it would be better if
we agreed not to rob from and murder each other.[10] But without a government, these
agreements will fall apart, because there’s nobody to ensure that all parties stick to the deal. In
the state of nature, agreements “are but words.”[

To secure peace, we will need to form a government that is strong enough to enforce these
agreements, says Hobbes. We do this by forming a special sort of contract or agreement with
each other.

The contract Hobbes imagines goes like this: if everyone else agrees to obey some sovereign
ruler, you too will obey that sovereign.

This creates a government ruled by a sovereign that we have all agreed to obey. The sovereign
will make and enforce laws. Chaos will be replaced with order.

In order to keep the peace, Hobbes thinks the sovereign must have power over everything: the
army, the treasury, the judiciary, what’s taught in schools, and anything else that it needs to
prevent the state of nature.

Hobbes thinks that these powers are all linked together: if the sovereign doesn’t control the
army, it’s no use to control the judiciary, because they can’t enforce the laws. If they don’t
control the money, they can’t pay the army. If they don’t control the schools, people will be
taught false things that will cause them to rebel.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Rousseau theory of general will

The quick version of Rousseau’s philosophy is summed up in his book, The Social Contract
(1762):

Man is born free; and everywhere is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still
remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can
make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.…

In the first Book of The Social Contract, Rousseau recapitulates the stages of development of
mankind culminating in the conclusion of the social contract: ‘Each one of us puts into the
community his person and all his powers under the supreme direction of the general will; and
as a body, we incorporate every member as an indivisible part of the whole’ (1968:61).
Rousseau followed Hobbes and Locke in considering the social contract as the sole means by
which the security of each individual’s life and property could be guaranteed once conditions in
the state of nature threatened human survival. But whereas for Hobbes entering the social
contract resulted in an absolute loss of sovereignty on the part of the individual as against the
sovereign (1968:228-239), and for Locke the transfer of sovereignty was limited (1993:326-327),
Rousseau used the concept of the General Will to resolve the paradox that, while the social
contract constituted a ‘total alienation by each associate of himself and all his rights to the
whole community’(1968:60), each individual nevertheless ‘recovers the equivalent of
everything he loses, and in the bargain he acquires more power to preserve what he has’.

The goal of the text is to reconcile individual liberty and the communal force to secure
liberty.According to Rousseau, the solution to this riddle lies in the social contract. Free
individualscome together and form a public person, the sovereign. In contrast to Hobbes or
Grotius,Rousseau regards the sovereign not as the center of power, but as the center of the
formationof the general will. The sovereign is identical with the people and it delegates power
to agovernment after the people has been unified in the sovereign. Where absolutist
philosophers sacrificed individual liberty for security, Rousseau tries to reconcile both.
Thegovernment protects individuals, but the latter remain free because the power of
governmentis dependent on the deliberations of the sovereign people.

The sovereign has two main characteristics. Firstly, it is inalienable. The sovereigncan delegate
power, but not the general will, since it is nothing but he exercise of the generalwill. If the
sovereign would delegate the will to, for instance, a king, the will would no longer be general
and the social contract, installing popular sovereignty, would be broken. Secondly,sovereignty is
indivisible. The general will is not simply the will of all individuals. It is aunity separated from
the mere juxtaposition of its members.

The will of the sovereigncan become general under three conditions.

General participation.

If sovereignty is inalienable and indivisible, then everyoneshould participate in the formation of

the general will. All who enter the social contract aremembers of the sovereign. Every citizen
should utter his own opinion, which cannot bedelegated to a faction or corporation. Factions
would only promote the collected self-interests of their members. The general will is however
not identical to the consensus of the people. The people can err, but the general will cannot.

General scope

. The laws emerging from the sovereign can only have a general scope.They cannot directly
apply to individual cases. For instance, the sovereign can declare thatmurder is punished with
imprisonment, but it cannot decide that murderer X should becondemned to 20 years of
imprisonment.

General subjectivity

. Viewed separately, general participation and scope areinsufficient. The possible divergence
between the general will and the people‟s consensus is unclear and there is no reason to think
that the members of the sovereign would promote thegeneral interest instead of their private
interests. For now Hegel‟s critique of the general will being a sum of individual wills still stands

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. LOCKE was the father of Modern Liberal Democracy-comment

John Locke is frequently called the father of modern democracy for his political theory that he
developed in Two Treatises of Civil Government (1680-1690). Of the two treatises, the second
treatise is specially important in the history of political philosophy. The second treatise was
published just one year after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the treatise also justifies the
revolution. The political philosophy Locke developed in this work is highly democratic and had
much influence on English politics and also on the American constitution. The relationship
between the ruler and the ruled he proposes here is of more democratic than any other
theories given before him. The ideas that he discusses include equality of men,the consent of
the majority,the division of power and the right to rebellion.

State of nature and the equality of men

Locke begins his political philosophy with the treatment of the state of nature.He describes the
condition very differently from his contemporary political thinker Hobbes.To Locke the state of
nature is not the war of all against all as described by Hobbes.On the other hand men living
together according to their reason without a common superior on earth with an authority to
judge between them is termed by Locke as the proper state of nature.So,Locke gives emphasis
of the equality of men.All men are created by God as equal and no one is superior to other.This
concept of equality later influenced Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Private property

To Locke man has some basic rights including the right to property.Even in the state of nature
men had the right to property and the justification of property is labor.So,whatever a man
transforms from its original condition by his own labour becomes his.By property he also means
the life ,liberty and happiness.

Social contract and the consent of the majority

The contract by which men avoided the state of nature and entered into the civil government is
the social contract.Men entered into the civil government mainly to preserve his property,that
means his life,liberty and happiness.Men also entered into the civil to have an independent and
neutral judge. The civil government will also be based on the consent of the majority people.
So,the consent of the majority is another democratic element in his theory.According to Locke
the absolute government is not the right kind of government as it is not based on the consent of
the majority.

Sovereign power

But Locke’s most democratic principles deal with his definition of the sovereign power.The
sovereign power is the power of the government.At first,Locke divides the sovereign power into
two quarters, namely, legislative and executive .The legislative power should be separated from
the executive power is the most revolutionary democratic principle of Locke’s philosophy.The
legislative means the parliament which makes the laws.But the legislative body is selected by
the general people.To Locke legislative power is held as a trust and is,therefore,only a fiduciary
power.So,there remains in the hands of the general people a supreme power to remove or alter
the legislative power when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them.

Right to Rebellion

This leads to the second great democratic principle namely the right to rebellion.According to
Locke the transfer of the right to rule from the people to the sovereign is revocable and the
people retain the right to make rebellion.Locke says that if the legislative or the executive body
engages in the wicked acts the people will take decision to punish accordingly.Locke places
sovereignty into the hands of the people.

Conclusion

To sum up, Locke's model consists of a civil state, built upon the natural rights common to a
people who need and welcome an executive power to protect their property and liberties; the
government exists for the people's benefit and can be replaced or overthrown if it ceases to
function toward that primary end.

Locke for the first time introduced the representative government. His ideas heavily influenced,
however, both the American and French Revolutions. His notions of people's rights and the role
of civil government provided strong support for the intellectual movements of both
revolutions.For this reason he is called the father of modern democracy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------