Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau: Philosophies of Human Nature and Social Contract

1. A Comparative Overview

Before we dive into a detailed, point-by-point analysis, it's helpful to get a concise overview of how these three theories stack up against one another. The following video provides an excellent summary, highlighting the core contrasts in their views on human nature, freedom, and government.

2. A Framework for Analysis: Contractarian vs. Contractualist

As someone with a background in formal systems, you'll appreciate that contemporary philosophers have developed a more abstract framework for categorizing social contract theories. A key distinction is between contractarian and contractualist approaches. This distinction hinges on the assumptions made about the individuals entering the contract and the fundamental question the theory tries to answer.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract" provides a clear explanation of this useful distinction.

As you've just read, we can categorize our three thinkers (albeit with some simplification) as follows:

• Contractarian (Hobbes and, to a degree, Locke): This approach is reductionist. It attempts to derive moral or political principles from non-moral, rational self-interest. The central question is, "Why should a rational, self-interested individual accept moral or political constraints?" It aims to show that it is prudent to be moral.
• Contractualist (Rousseau and later, Kant and Rawls): This approach is non-reductionist. It begins with parties who are already endowed with certain moral ideas (like a desire for fairness or a sense of equality). The central question is not "Why be moral?" but rather, "What moral or political principles would free and equal moral persons agree to?"

This framework helps explain why the theories differ so fundamentally. Hobbes is trying to solve a problem of pure prudence in a world of egoists. Rousseau is trying to design a political structure for individuals who have a capacity for reason and a sense of the common good, but are corrupted by existing society. Locke occupies a middle ground, assuming individuals have moral rights from the outset but are primarily motivated by rational self-interest in protecting those rights.

3. Systematic Comparison

Let's now break down their theories across four key dimensions: (1) Human Nature, (2) the State of Nature, (3) the Purpose and Terms of the Contract, and (4) the Nature of Sovereignty.

The following academic paper provides a well-structured comparison that we will use to guide our analysis.

Drawing on the texts we've studied, let's crystallize the distinctions.

A. The Starting Point: Human Nature and the State of Nature

The view of human nature is the foundational axiom from which each theory is derived.

• Hobbes: Assumes humans are fundamentally self-interested, competitive, and driven by a thirst for power ("a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death"). This inherent nature, combined with a rough equality of ability, inevitably leads to a State of Nature that is a "war of every man against every man." Life is characterized by constant fear and the danger of violent death.
• Locke: Posits that humans are creatures of reason and tolerance. Human nature is governed by a Natural Law, which reason teaches us, stating that "being all equal and independent, no one ought toharm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." His State of Nature is therefore one of peace and reason. However, it is marred by "inconveniences": the lack of an impartial judge, an established law, and a power to execute just sentences.
• Rousseau: Presents a more complex, two-stage view. Primitive man is naturally good, a "noble savage" driven by self-preservation (amour de soi) and compassion (pitié). The initial State of Nature is idyllic and solitary. However, with the rise of society, private property, and comparison with others, a corrosive form of self-love called amour propre (pride, vanity) emerges. This leads to a second, corrupt state of inequality and conflict, which Rousseau considers the "chains" of modern society.

B. The Agreement: The Purpose and Terms of the Contract

The purpose of the contract directly addresses the problem identified in the state of nature.

• Hobbes: The purpose is singular and absolute: security. People contract with each other to escape the terror of the state of nature. To achieve this, they agree to transfer nearly all their rights and powers to a sovereign authority. The sovereign is not a party to the contract and is thus not bound by it.
• Locke: The purpose is to remedy the inconveniences of the state of nature. People contract to create an impartial government that can secure their pre-existing natural rights, especially the right to property. They transfer only one right: the right to personally interpret and enforce the law of nature. All other natural rights (life, liberty, property) are retained. The government is a party to the trust-like agreement and can be dissolved if it violates its terms.
• Rousseau: The purpose is not merely to escape chaos or protect property, but to achieve a higher form of freedom: moral liberty. The goal is to "find a form of association... in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey only himself, and remain as free as before." The terms are a "total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community." In giving yourself to everyone, you give yourself to no one in particular.

C. The Result: Sovereignty and Government

The nature of the resulting political authority is the most dramatic point of divergence.

• Hobbes: Sovereignty is absolute, indivisible, and inalienable, vested in a single entity (a monarch or an assembly). The sovereign has ultimate authority to make laws, judge disputes, and control all aspects of civic and religious life to maintain peace. There is no right to rebellion.
• Locke: Sovereignty ultimately resides in the people, but it is exercised through a limited, representative government. He advocates for a separation of powers (primarily legislative and executive) to prevent the abuse of authority. Crucially, if the government breaks the social contract and violates natural rights, the people have the right to revolution.
• Rousseau: Sovereignty is the exercise of the general will. It is absolute, indivisible, and inalienable, just as in Hobbes's theory, but it resides directly in the whole body of citizens. Rousseau famously rejects representation, arguing that sovereignty cannot be represented. The people themselves must be the legislators. The "government" is merely a subordinate executive body, tasked with implementing the laws made by the sovereign people.

4. Summary Table

The following table provides a high-level summary of these core distinctions. It's a useful tool for organizing your understanding of their competing models.

Conclusion

In this lesson, we have systematically dissected the social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, revealing how their differing axioms about human nature lead to radically different conclusions about the legitimate purpose and structure of the state.

• Key Takeaways:
  • Hobbes's theory is a contract of submission for the sake of survival, justifying absolutism.
  • Locke's theory is a contract of trust to secure pre-existing rights, justifying liberal, limited government.
  • Rousseau's theory is a contract of transformation to create a new form of moral freedom, justifying a radical, direct democracy.
  • The core tension they grapple with is the trade-off between freedom and security. Hobbes sacrifices freedom for security; Locke seeks to balance them; Rousseau attempts to redefine freedom so that it is realized through total political participation.
  • Using the modern analytical frame, Hobbes and Locke's "contractarian" projects seek to justify the state on grounds of rational self-interest, while Rousseau's "contractualist" project seeks to establish a state based on shared moral principles of freedom and equality.

This exploration of the classic social contract theories provides the essential background for understanding contemporary political philosophy. Their ideas, from natural rights to popular sovereignty, continue to shape our political discourse and institutions.

Preview of the Next Lesson:
Having analyzed the foundational contract theories, we will now leap forward to the 20th century to study the work of John Rawls. In his masterpiece, A Theory of Justice, Rawls revitalizes the social contract tradition, but for a new purpose: not to justify the state's existence, but to determine the principles of justice that should govern its basic structure. We will explore his ingenious thought experiment, the "original position," and the two principles of justice he argues would be chosen from behind a "veil of ignorance."