Discussion starter: Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all argue that the Social Contract/Covenant establishes a sovereign power. What are the differences? How does the varying conceptions of the ‘State of Nature’ affect those differences? Does the ‘General Will’ equal the ‘legislative power’ in Locke?

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all have different conceptions of the state of nature and this difference results in distinctive social contracts.

For Hobbes, the state of nature is equal to the state of war and this results in the necessity of a sovereign who will conserve security. Thus, the social contract of Hobbes is one that is mainly preoccupied with security. In the Leviathan, Hobbes does not even consider the concept of liberty because he equates association (with a leader/sovereign) and total submission. The model of Hobbes is then one where submission to the sovereign is absolute and where the sovereign is not bound to submit to the contract (absolute power).

Locke takes a more liberal approach because he believes that the state of nature is a harmonious state with a reasonable amount of liberty. It is a state where man can guarantee his own conservation, punish those who are a threat to his life, and have a certain right to property. However, the right to property is limited and hence the need for the social contract.

According to Locke, men enter in this social state by association (mutual consent) and conditional submission (The government is legitimate as long as the majority decides it is). In order for this contract to be conserved, Locke uses one of the principals of our modern democracies, which is the division of power. He thus creates a legislative power that creates laws and an executive power that punishes those who do not respect the contract. (This would probably also include our modern day judiciary power).

Rousseau is clearly greatly influenced by Locke. They are thinking about the same philosophical problems and their theories are based on the same premise: The natural harmony of the state of nature. Rousseau’s state of nature is slightly different because it does not represent an ideal. It is a state that never existed (purely theoretical), but it is one where the moral and intellectual development of men is nonexistent. It is a state where men cannot be evil simply because they are living individually and to be evil, man needs to cause harm to other men. Thus, the presence of evil automatically implies the social state (as opposed to the state of nature).

Rousseau and Locke, however, disagree on the conception of that contract, i.e. on how to reach the political ideal that the social contract represents.

For Hobbes, but also Locke, the social contract results in total or partial alienation of the individual. However, for Rousseau, the main issue is to conserve liberties.

“Find a form of association that will bring the whole common force to bear on defending and protecting each associate’s person and goods, doing this in such a way that each of them, while uniting himself with all, still obeys only himself and remains as free as before.” (VI)

           

In this new form of contract, all the individuals come together, accept all the obligations brought upon them by “the general will”, which also comes from themselves. (This is more like: People nowadays in democracies create the laws through their representatives and obey them). Moreover, every individual can have a personal will that is different from the general will. This means that the general will is not the sum of personal interests (which can certainly be conflicting) but is rather a guarantee of a common good. Thus, the total reciprocity between the individuals and society is paradoxically what makes a contract of submission (such as the of Hobbes and Locke) useless.

This is why Rousseau says that “Obedience to a law that we prescribe to ourselves is liberty”. It makes us all equal despite our natural inequalities.