Paste your essay in here…The social contract most generally explained is a metaphorical agreement among individuals to come together and form a society. The idea of the social contract has been around since the roots of society; however, there are varying opinions as to what dictates the social contract and why an individual would enter into this contract. For the purposes of this paper: John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau will be the main focus.
These three theorists ground their philosophies in the idea of the State of Nature. This State of Nature means something different to each of them; however, they all share the commonality as being the root of necessity for the social contract. For John Locke, the State of Nature is a place where humans are naturally free. They are governed by no laws but their own consent. Locke also believes that humans are born with innate morals based on the Law of Nature. This is a natural reasoning that enforces all members to no harm another in life, health, liberty, or possessions.
While this freedom seems endearing, this liberty to enjoy his or her property is ultimately very unsafe and insecure. This uncertainty encourages the individuals to give up their own equality, liberty, and executive power in order to be governed by the legislative as a whole. This social contract ensures the common good for society; however, Locke posits that it is self-interest that encourages individuals to enter this social contract, as it provides a governing mechanism to enforce the Law of Nature.
For Locke, the social contract consists of a government that supports the common good, where the power of this legislative cannot extend past what is considered the common good. The main purpose of this contract is for the preservation of human, liberty, and property. Those with legislative power are governed by established standing laws, which are known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees or other potentially biased and unfair assertions of power. This legislative is upheld by tacit consent. Locke postulates that legitimate government cannot exist without consent of the whole. This consent is implied through an individual enjoying the benefits provided by the government, which infers tacit consent to enter the social contract.
Locke only provides one of many viewpoints on the topic of social contracts. Another key philosopher with a different approach to the theory is Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes approaches the State of Nature with a more cynical view. Like Locke, the State of Nature is a state where all of humankind is equal, whereas there are no governing rules or legislation. Each person is responsible for their own liberty and property. Where Hobbes differs is by suggesting that individuals are born with no innate morals at all. For example, while most individuals are only interested in the vital protection of themselves, some take pleasure in their own power and may pursue acts of conquest beyond what is necessary for their survival. It is this brutality that leads to the creation of the social contract according to Hobbes.
For Hobbes, the lack of morals creates the social contract out of necessity. The social contract is a commonwealth that holds citizens accountable for their actions and ensures the prolonged existence of humankind. In this society, similar to Locke, the self-interest of humans plays a role, which encourages them a society to be created that is conducive to their own interests. This commonwealth is formed by individuals who first seek peace to provide protection from each other, as well as, foreign enemies. In order to uphold the social contract, Hobbes believes that this commonwealth is to be sovereign. This sovereign acts as an enforcement mechanism to uphold peace and defence within society. Aside from this mechanism to ensure peace and defence, the state is largely uninvolved. Individuals still act largely with their own self-interest, just with common agreement of mutually assured harmony. While Locke also stresses the significance of self-interest, Hobbes’ views differs in that Locke sees the state as more of an impartial asset, which is more involved in society to ensure the security of person, liberty, and property.
Another philosopher, who takes a different approach to the social contract than Locke and Hobbes, is Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In Rousseau’s view, within the State of Nature, neither peace nor war can exist as both require a relation among individuals. This is very different from both Locke and Hobbes who see the State of Nature in a more threatening light. Regardless, a social compact to come together as a collective still grows out of a necessity for humankind to thrive, whereas if this social compact was not to be created, humankind would perish in the primitive condition put forth by the State of Nature.
In Rousseau’s view, the social contract creates a sovereign that is indivisible and inalienable. This sovereign is divided by force and will into legislative and executive power; however, the sovereign is created overall under a more collectivist approach. It is the collective’s general will that makes the sovereign indivisible, and by nature inalienable. The general will still supports the idea of self-interested individuals, similar to Locke and Hobbes, but introduces the idea of sharing self-interests. This general will is what guides the sovereign in working for the public’s advantage. This social contract operates largely under Rousseau’s famous assertion that individuals are “forced to be freeâ€. This essentially means that the freedom and equality guaranteed by the social contract is shared both individually and collectively. It is this shared general will and collectivism that makes Rousseau’s views stand so far apart from the self-interest centric views of both Locke and Hobbes.
Relevant to the idea of the social contract is Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès’ theory of constituent power, which can be compared to Locke’s theory of social contract. As discussed earlier in this paper, the social contract revolves around coming together as a collective to form a political society. On the other hand, Sieyès puts forth the idea of the Third Estate, which states that a nation needs private employments and public services to thrive. The Third Estate is the governing body of these activities, creating a power hierarchy that does not exist in Locke’s social contract. Sieyès theory also introduces the idea of the three epochs. The first epoch is responsible for individual will, similar to the self-interest put forth in Locke’s theory. The second epoch is characterized as the common will among incumbents. Lastly is the third epoch, which is a representative common will that is expressed by a body of representatives.
As part of the Third Estate came Sieyès theory of constituent power. The most prominent difference between this theory and Locke’s theory of social contract is the case in which each theorist saw a constitutional change as justified. In the eyes of Locke, a revolt is justified when faced with a tyrannical government. This being a government that has exercised their power beyond what is necessary to ensure the common good. This unjustified abuse of power justifies the dissolution of government, as that is what has become the best for humankind. Conversely, the criteria for revolt is a lot more open in Sieyès theory of constituent power. Sieyès sees a revolt as justified anytime that the people feel they should be the government. This comes out of the third epoch that accounts for the representative will, which supports the collectives common will and desire to become the government.
Overall, the idea of a social contract remains a highly debated and controversial issue. As discussed in this paper, there are many commonalties; however, there are also many differences among the work of the various philosophers. Regardless, they all sought out to explain the patterns of society, which helps to disseminate the complexity that is modern day society.