The social contracts of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke could not be more disparate. Thomas Hobbes glorifies the role of a political leader, and argues the giving up of rights in exchange for security is what is necessary to maintain peace in society. Locke argues that humans have a natural moral compass, and therefore do not need an all powerful being to tell them what is right or wrong. The only role of political leadership in Locke’s eyes is to preserve the rights of the people and to enforce justice. The difference between the two men and their ideologies stems from their fundamentally different views of human nature, and their very different State of Natures. Hobbes’s need for an all powerful sovereign and limited freedoms stems from his view of humans as selfish, untrustworthy beings who can only agree upon the desire to preserve their own lives. Locke’s call for limited government intervention is due to his view of humans as children of God, born with moral compasses.
Hobbes argues individuals are born knowing nothing and are a product of matter in motion, so any personal opinions or beliefs are purely based off of previous experiences and are therefore unreliable. There is no such thing as “good” or “bad”, only preferences founded on past encounters. According to Hobbes this is a recipe for disaster, as how could peace be possible if individuals cannot agree on fundamentals such as what is right or wrong. All views and judgements are subjective, creating chaos for society. “The source of every crime, is some defect of the understanding; or some error in reasoning; or some sudden force of the passions. Defect in the understanding is ignorance; in reasoning, erroneous opinion”. This chaos is what Hobbes describes as the State of Nature. Due to the constant disagreements and selfish pursuits, individuals live in constant fear, whether it be for their belongings or their lives. In Hobbes’s state of nature, every individual is equal in the sense that everyone has the capability of ending each other's lives, because of the fact that even the most powerful men sleep at night and are therefore vulnerable. This leads to a perpetual state of mistrust among society, creating a constant state of war. In Hobbes’s view, the only solution to the nasty, brutish, and short life in the State of Nature is an all powerful sovereign. The sovereign would solve all disputes; there would no longer be disagreements on what is right or wrong, because everything is simply as the sovereign says it is. For example, if the sovereign would to say the sky is green, then the sky would be green and that would be the accepted truth. The sovereign would not only have control over what is right or wrong, but the sovereign could essentially control every aspect of life. The rights of an individual have the possibility of being significantly reduced or removed within Hobbes’s social contract. One may question why any sane individual would agree to such an arrangement. Hobbes’s reasoning is that the one thing humans all have in common is the desire to survive. As rational beings whose main goal is to preserve their lives, individuals will give up their rights in order to live in a peaceful society under a sovereign, in which they will be able to pursue their personal interests which is their ultimate goal. There is also the possibility that the sovereign completely leaves them alone and does not limit their rights at all. They have the power to maintain their rights once entering the contract, but also the potential to lose nearly all. The one right that is guaranteed under Hobbes’s social contract is the right to self preservation. No matter how many other rights are removed by the sovereign, each individual reserves the right to defend their lives. Hobbes’s social contract provides basic security for individuals as they no longer worry about the subjective nature of personal judgements nor do they fear the attack of their fellow civilians; all anyone has to fear is the sovereign. “The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the power lasteth by which he is able to protect them”. If the Sovereign fails to do this one job of providing basic security, citizens have the right to revolt and replace the sovereign.
To contrast, John Locke has a much less restrictive idea of a social contract. To begin, Locke has a very different view of the State of Nature compared to that of Hobbes. Contrary to Hobbes, Locke views the state of nature as not necessarily a state of war. He describes it as a “state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man”. The State of Nature is a peaceful place, which is the opposite of Hobbes’s view. Also unlike Hobbes, Locke believes humans are born knowing what is right and wrong, and do not require an all powerful sovereign to determine this for them. Therefore although Locke’s State of Nature lacks political institutions, it does not lack morality. Individuals in Locke’s State of Nature are capable of pursuing their interests without interference from others, as they are all God’s children and therefore forbidden from harming each other or their property. However, a State of War is still possible in Locke’s view. This can occur when individuals violate the Law of Nature by stealing or infringing upon another person’s God given natural rights. Locke introduces politics as a solution to those who violate the Law of Nature. In this social contract, men give up executive power and form “one body politic under one government”. Under this contract, individuals maintain their rights to life, liberty, and property. It allows for them to have a separate, just entity to solve disputes. If at any point the government oversteps their power or fails to protect the life, liberty, or property of its citizens, the citizens have the right to revolt and overthrow the government. Locke’s social contract allows for individuals to maintain their natural, God given rights, as the only role of the government is to ensure justice is enforced when these rights are violated. This is the polar opposite to Hobbes, as in his society individuals must give up all of their rights to the sovereign in order to preserve their lives.
Hobbes’s conception of the social contract is the most effective in addressing the problems which he set out to solve which was to save individuals from the constant fear and insecurity that is the State of Nature. The main concern with Hobbes’s society is the concern that the Sovereign may do “bad” things to their subjects, perhaps take away all liberties besides the right of self preservation. Individuals have the possibility of living a very restricted life under Hobbes’s Sovereign. However in Hobbes’s society, there is no such thing as good or bad, only what the Sovereign says. Therefore the Sovereign can almost literally do no wrong. Individuals do not question the morality of the Sovereign, which creates a far more peaceful society while also removing any potential internal conflicts. In Hobbes’s society, truly all that anyone would have to fear is the Sovereign, which satisfies the problem of uncertainty and disputes which Hobbes intended to solve. The role of the Sovereign is truly so minimal that it would be the most successful to enact. It also has the potential to be a very free and open society, in which the Sovereign leaves the citizens alone and allows them to maintain their liberties while still providing them with security. Locke’s conception of the social contract leaves too much to argue over, particularly when he writes while speaking of property, “It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others”. The end of this quote stating there must be enough and as good left in common for others is unclear as what is good enough left over for others is very subjective. What one individual thinks is good enough for someone else may be the complete opposite in that someone else’s eyes. Locke later writes “That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right”. In Locke’s view, simply putting work into an object gives someone private rights over it. This idea could lead to many future disputes and violate another person’s right to property if their own property was taken by someone else who put different labour into it. Although Hobbes’s social contract is far more limiting and therefore daunting to consider, it ultimately does its job of providing security and peace very effectively, unlike Locke who leaves room for debate.
The difference between the social contracts of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke is substantial. These differences are founded on their wildly different views of the State of Nature. While Hobbes’s State of Nature is one of constant fear and mistrust, Locke believes in a moral State of Nature in which every individual is born with natural rights and morals from God. These views provide the base for how each philosopher decides how political institutions should be established. While both provide interesting ideas, Hobbes’s call for an all powerful sovereign is ultimately the most effective in solving his problem of constant war in the State of Nature, as he leaves next to nothing up for questioning because the Sovereign controls all.