Modern Political Theory

2786 Words12 Pages
Compare and contrast Hobbes’s and Locke’s notions of the social contract. In making a comparative and critical analysis between the Social Contract Theory of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, this paper will analyse how both theorists use the notion of the social contract as a means of explaining the origins of civil society and government. While both political thinkers use the social contract theory as the means to protect fundamental rights, their views on how this is achieved and maintained differ vastly. Hobbes advocates for an absolutist sovereign who wields all the power in order to maintain the protection of its citizens and the state where as Locke argues for a limited government whose authority derives from the consent of the ones being ruled and one which is checked through separate branches of power. This paper will then conclude that while similarities between the two thinkers do exist in regards to using the notion of the state of nature as the condition to enter a social contract, their perceptions of the sovereign and the power he can exercise creates different outcomes when forming civil society. Firstly, this paper will give a brief outline of both philosophers’ theories when establishing the social contract. Thomas Hobbes was writing at the backdrop of the English civil war and had witnessed the absolute breakdown of government in England. This is the foundation for his pessimistic view of human nature and his idea of the state of war being a ‘war of all against all’. In the absence of a power sovereign, we would all kill each other because fundamentally we are all selfish and we all seek protection through whatever means necessary; this is similar to John Calvin’s view who notes that humans are depraved and incapable of doing anything. Additional, humans are equal in a state of nature in terms of physicality and mentality; man will seek any
Open Document