Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in Social Contract Theory - Essay Example

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in Social Contract Theory 20th, December John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were social theorists responsible for the development of the social contract theory. This theory mainly suggests the formation of a stable society is influenced by people’s moral responsibilities, which rely on their collective agreement. These two social theorists use the social contract theory to explain how the government phenomenon rose to existence. The perceptions in their individual social contrast theory emanate from their works in Political Philosophy.

John Locke published Two Treatise of Government, while Hobbes published Leviathan, which, are based on Political Philosophy. In these two books, Locke and Hobbes’ views on the social contract can be studied. Although Locke and Hobbes differ in their arguments and perceptions of social contract, they both agree that, in the state of nature, people will be more willing to choose state protection over their liberty. This is the core of social contract theory (Morris, 1999). In the social contract theory, both Hobbes and Locke argue that the state of nature is more likely to experience chaos.

However, Locke views the state of nature and natural law from a more positive perspective as compared to Hobbes. Hobbes on the other side argues that highly egoistic people, whose probability of initiating war is very high, inhabit the state of nature. The function of Hobbes and Locke’s social contract theory was to serve as a way of citizens’ rights protection. However, these two differed on the manner in which this could be conducted. While Hobbes thought that a central authority could be responsible for the protection of citizens’ rights, Locke thought that division of power was necessary so that all citizens, including those in authority are held accountable to the law in society (Mack, 2009).

Hobbes and Locke similarly address the roots of civilization using their concept of the state of nature. This is a term in political philosophy, which refers to the society without the emergence of the government system. Hobbes describes the state of nature as devoid of rule of war and inhabitants live in fear of death, and in brutality. He links brutality in the state of nature to the lack of rights, including property rights. Therefore, in this state, enmity between people crops from the competition for resources, as there are no rules that determine the legitimacy of property ownership by people.

However, Locke’s view on the state of nature sharply contrasts Hobbes’ view. Locke thought that a central authority is not responsible for the development of rights in the society, as these rights, including property rights, existed way before the centralization of authority. He defends his argument by suggesting that private property in the state of nature is created when people use their labour on natural resources to transform it into a more productive state, which will be regarded as theirs by other people.

He asserts that in the state of nature, people live peacefully, with rational deeds, and maintain moral and social standards in society (Mouritz, 2010). In their social theories, both Hobbes and Locke agree that there is a lot more freedom in the state of nature, but lower security level. Therefore, people will be ready to give up their freedom for the attainment of security, which is a source of a more fulfilling life. They also agree that the government system has the responsibility of ensuring that citizens’ rights of property, including other rights, are guaranteed.

However, Locke thought that an additional role of government is to ensure justice in society through correction and punishment. (Mack, 2009). Conclusively, both Locke and Hobbes were important contributors to the discipline of political philosophy. Through the theory of social contract, they voiced their opinions on how a society should be ruled, and reasons why society needs rulership. They based their views on the state of nature, which existed before the development of governance. Therefore, they agreed that a social contract was vital, as it serves the purpose of protecting citizens.

Their views have had considerable influence in past and contemporary governance.ReferencesMack, E. (2009). John Locke. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Morris, C. (1999). The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. New Jersey: Rowman & Littlefield.Mouritz, T. (2010). Comparing the Social Contracts Of Hobbes And Locke. The Western Australian Jurist. Vol. 1: 123-127. Retrieved from http://www.law.murdoch.edu.au/walta/articles/vol_1_2010/WAJ_Vol1_2010_Tom%20Mouritz%20-%20Hobbes%20&%20Locke.pdf