When it comes to political philosophy, Hobbes and Locke are two of the biggest names that come to mind. Both of them proposed the concept of social contract theory in different ways, but with a shared goal of establishing the basis of a just and orderly society.
However, there are some key differences in their approaches to this theory, and understanding these differences can help us gain a deeper appreciation of their ideas and their relevance to modern political discourse.
To start with, let`s define social contract theory. At its core, this theory proposes that individuals voluntarily agree to give up some of their freedoms to a governing authority in exchange for protection and security. In other words, they willingly enter into a social contract with the government, agreeing to follow its laws and regulations in exchange for the benefits it provides.
Now, let`s look at how Hobbes and Locke approached this concept.
Hobbes` Social Contract Theory
Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, was the first modern thinker to articulate social contract theory. In his seminal work, Leviathan, he argues that before the establishment of government, life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” because humans were in a constant state of war with each other.
According to Hobbes, the only way to escape this violent and chaotic existence was to enter into a social contract with a monarch who would have absolute power. In this system, the monarch`s authority would be absolute and indivisible, and the people would have to obey without question. Failure to do so would result in punishment, including death.
For Hobbes, the social contract was necessary to create order and stability and protect individuals from the violence and anarchy of a state of nature. The government`s power was necessary to maintain this order, and any challenge to its authority was a threat to the social contract and the stability it provided.
Locke`s Social Contract Theory
John Locke, another English philosopher, had a different view of social contract theory. In contrast to Hobbes, Locke believed that humans were capable of reason and cooperation, and that they could live together harmoniously without the need for absolute government power.
For Locke, the social contract was an agreement between the people and the government, rather than just between the people themselves. In this system, the government was responsible for protecting the rights of individuals, including their right to life, liberty, and property.
Locke believed that if the government failed to uphold its end of the contract, the people had the right to overthrow it and establish a new government that would better serve their needs. This idea of a “right to revolution” gave the people a measure of power and control over their government.
While both Hobbes and Locke proposed social contract theory as a way to create a just and stable society, their differences in approach are significant. Hobbes saw the government as an absolute authority that must be obeyed without question, while Locke saw it as a partnership between the people and the government, with the people having the power to hold the government accountable.
In modern times, we can see the influence of both Hobbes and Locke on political discourse. Some political leaders advocate for strong, centralized government power, while others emphasize the importance of individual rights and freedoms. Understanding the differences and similarities between these two approaches can help us better understand and navigate the complex political landscape of today.