Contract Theory

by Hobbes, Locke and Roussea

BY:GUNJAN (GF202110963)

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. Thus, they must agree to establish society by collectively and
reciprocally renouncing the rights they had against one another in the State of Nature and
they must imbue some one person or assembly of persons with the authority and power
to enforce the initial contract. In other words, to ensure their escape from the State of
Nature, they must both agree to live together under common laws, and create an
enforcement mechanism for the social contract and the laws that constitute it. Thus, the
authority or the government or the sovereign or the state came into being because of the
two agreements

Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by Thomas Hobbes

 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…
 Man has a natural desire for security and order. In order to secure self- protection 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.
 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 thus infers from his mechanistic theory of human nature that humans are
necessarily and exclusively self-interested. All men pursue only what they perceive to be
in their own individually considered best interests. They respond mechanistically by
being drawn to that which they desire and repelled by that to which they are averse. In
addition to being exclusively self-interested, Hobbes also argues that human beings are
reasonable. They have in them the rational capacity to pursue their desires as efficiently
and maximally as possible. From these premises of human nature, Hobbes goes on to
construct a provocative and compelling argument for which they ought to be willing to
submit themselves to political authority. He did this by imagining persons in a situation
prior to the establishment of society, the State of Nature.

 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.

Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by John Locke

 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 pre- moral. 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 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.

 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.
 Hence, John Locke advocated the principle of -╉a state of liberty; not of license╊. Locke
advocated a state for the general good of people. He pleaded for a constitutionally limited
government.

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

Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau

 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╆.

 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╊.

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