THE NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

BHOPAL

POLITICAL OBLIGATION

SEMESTER IV

TOPIC- SOCIAL CONTRACT THEROY BY HOBBES,

LOCKE AND ROUSSEAUE

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTE BY
Prof. RAKA ARYA PANKAJ SINGH
ROLL NO. 2019 BALLB 53
TABLE OF CONTANT
Introduction …………………………………………………………………….
What is social contract theory……………………………………………
Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by Thomas Hobbes……………………
Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by John Locke……………………….
Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau……………….
Comparison of the theory of social contract of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques
Rousseau………………………………………………….
Critical analysis…………………………………………………
Conclusion…………………………………….
Bibliography…………………………………….
INTRODUCTION
In moral and political life, Social contracts are a theory or model of the State's legitimacy
over the individual which emerged during the era of enlightenment.[1] Social contract
arguments generally indicate that citizens have consented to forfeit any of their freedoms,
either explicitly or tacitly, and are subject to authority (of the ruler, or tacitly), theory or
model of a social contract is The phrase takes its name from The Social Contract (French: Du
contrat social ou Principes du droit politique), a 1762 book by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which
explored this idea. While the antecedents of social contract theory are present in antiquity, in
Greek and Stoic philosophy, and in Roman and Canon law, the peak of the social contract
was in the mid-17th to early 19th centuries., when it emerged as the leading doctrine of
political legitimacy.

The starting point for most social contract theories is the examination of the human condition
which is absent from any political order (called the "state of nature" by Thomas Hobbes).[4]
In this condition, the actions of individuals are bound only by their personal power and
conscience. From this shared point of departure, social contract theorists try to show why
rational people volunteer to give up the natural freedom to achieve the advantages of political
order. Like Hugo Grotius (1625), Thomas Hobbes (1651), Samuel von Pufendorf (1673),
John Locke (1689), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) and Immanuel Kant (1797), influential
social contract and natural rights thinkers from the 17th and 18th centuries, each approaching
differently to political power. Grotius implied the natural rights of individual human
beings. Thomas Hobbes famously said that human life would be "solitary, bad, disgusting,
cruel and short" in the "state of nature." In the absence of political order and law, all would
have limitless natural liberties, including the "right to all things" and hence the freedom to
plunder, rape and murder; there would be an enduring "war of all against all" (bellum
omnium contra omnes). In order to prevent this, free men enter into a contract with each other
to create a political group (civil society) by a social contract through which they all obtain
immunity in exchange for submission to an absolute sovereign, a single individual or a men's
assembly. Though sovereign edicts could well be arbitrary and tyrannical, Hobbes saw
absolute government as the only solution to the alarming chaos of the state of nature. Hobbes
argued that human beings agree to abdicate their rights to the absolute power of government
(whether monarchical or parliamentary). Alternatively, Locke and Rousseau argued that we
gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of
others, giving up some freedoms to do so.

WHAT IS SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY

The concept of social contract theory is that, at the beginning, man lived in the state of nature.
They didn't have a government, and there was no legislation to oversee them. There have
been struggles and injustice in the parts of society. To resolve these challenges, two
agreements have been signed which are:-

1. Pactum Unionis; and

2. Pactum Subjections

By the first union pact, people sought to protect their lives and property. As a result, a society
was established in which people vowed to honour each other and to live in peace and
harmony. By the second pact of subjectionis, citizens were united and committed to
submission to authority and surrendered all or half of their independence and rights to
authority. The Authority has granted to everybody security of life , property and, to a certain
degree, independence. They must then consent to create a democracy by renouncing,
individually and reciprocally, the rights they have had against each other in the State of
Nature and must imbue a single individual or a group of individuals with the authority and
power to implement the initial contract. In other words, to ensure that they emerge from the
State of Existence, they must all agree to work together under common law and set up a
system for the compliance of the social compact and the rules that make it up. The authority,
or the state, or the king, or the state, has then arisen as a result of the two agreements.
Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes' Social Contract Theory appeared for the first time in Leviathan, published
in 1651 during the British Civil War. Thomas Hobbes Candidate Legal Philosophy is based
on the Social Contract Candidate. According to him, man existed in the State of Existence
before the Social Contract. Man's life in the state of NATURE was one of fear and
selfishness. Man existed in a turbulent state of extreme terror. Life in the State of Nature was
alone, weak, ugly, brutal, and brief.

Man has a natural instinct for protection and justice. Man entered into a contract to guarantee
self-protection and self-preservation, and to escape suffering and discomfort. This principle
of self-preservation and self-protection is innate in man's existence and, in order to do so,
they willingly surrendered all their privileges and liberties to any jurisdiction under this
arrangement, which would command obedience. As a part of this deal, the most powerful
authority is to protect and safeguard their life and property. This led to the creation of the
king or dictator, who is to be the supreme chief. Subjects have no rights against the absolute
power or the sovereign, and they must be obeyed in all cases, however poor or unworthy they
may be. However, Hobbes placed moral obligations on a sovereign bound by natural law.

It can be deduced, therefore, that Hobbes was a supporter of absolutism. In Hobbes' view, the
law relies on the sanction of the king, and the constitution without the sword is nothing but
words and no power to protect an individual at all. He therefore reiterated that civil law is a
valid law since it is regulated and applied by the sovereign. Thus, he has insisted that the
theory of Might is always Correct.

Hobbes thus infers from his mechanistic philosophy of human nature that human beings are
inherently and primarily self-interested. Both men pursue only what they consider to be in
their own best interests. They react mechanically by being attracted to what they want and
repulsed by what they are opposed to. In addition to being solely self-interested, Hobbes also
claims that human beings are rational. They have the rational potential to fulfil their interests
as effectively and as far as possible. From these principles of human existence, Hobbes
continues to create a provocative and convincing case on why they should be able to subject
themselves to political authority. He did this by considering people in a situation previous to
the creation of a culture, the State of Existence.

In order to protect the peace, life and prosperity of individuals, Hobbes advises subjects to
forfeit all their privilege and puts on the sovereign's freedoms. This is why common law has
been the sovereign's moral guide or framework for protecting the subjects' natural rights. For
Hobbes, any statute depends on the sovereign's penalty. Any true law is civil law, a law
ordered and exercised by the supreme, which is introduced into the world essentially to
restrict the inherent rights of persons in such a way that they do not harm other people but
support one another and unite with one another. He was in favour of a set order. Therefore,
the philosophy of Hobbes is interwoven in individualism, materialism, utilitarianism and
absolutions.

Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by John Locke

John Locke's Social Contract Theory is distinct from Hobbes's. According to him, man
existed in the State of Nature, but his interpretation of the State of Nature varies from that of
the Hobbesian philosophy. Locke 's view of the state of things is not as miserable as that of
Hobbes. It was fairly decent and fun, but the property was not secure. He viewed the State of
Nature as the Golden Age. It was a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and protection.
In that state of nature, men had all the privileges that nature might grant them. Locke justifies
this by saying that, in the State of Nature, the natural state of humankind was a state of
perfect and complete freedom to conduct one 's life as one best sees fit. It was free from
interference from others. In that state of nature, they were all equal and independent.
However, this does not mean that it was a state of licence. It was one that was not free to do
anything at all that one would like to do, or anything that one judge would want to do. It was
one not free to do something at all one pleases, or even anything that one considers to be in
ones interest. The State of Nature, while there was no civil authority or legislature to
prosecute citizens for transgressions against the constitution, was not a state without morals.
The State of Nature was pre-political, but it was not pre-moral. People are believed to be
equal to each other in such a society, and thus equally capable of discovering and being
bound by the Law of Nature. Thus, the State of Nature was a state of democracy, where
people are free to follow their own desires and plans, free from intrusion, and because of the
Rule of Nature and the limitations that it puts on individuals, it is reasonably calm.

Property plays a crucial role in Locke 's case for the constitutional society and the contract
that creates it. According to Locke, private property is created when a person mixes his
labour with the raw materials of nature. In view of the ramifications of the Rule of Nature,
there are limitations as to how much property one can own: one is not permitted to take too
much more from nature than one can need, leaving others without enough for themselves,
because nature is offered to all mankind for its collective survival. One can not take more
than one's own equal share. Property is the linchpin of Lockes' argument in favour of the
social contract and the civil government, because it is the protection of their property,
including their property, 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, in the State of Nature, man felt the need to protect his property and, in order to protect
his property, men entered into the Social Contract. Under the contract, man has not
surrendered all his rights to one person, but has surrendered only the right to preserve /
maintain order and to enforce the rule of nature. The individual retained the other rights, i.e.
the right to life, liberty and estate, because those rights were considered natural and
inalienable rights of men.

Having created a civil society and a constitution by their approval, men then acquired three
elements that were missing in the State of Nature: the rules, the judges to adjudicate the rules,
and the executive authority required to execute those laws. Therefore, each man gives the
power to defend himself and to prosecute the transgressors of the Rule of Nature to the
government he has formed by the compact.

According to Locke, the aim of the Government and the constitution is to preserve and
protect the natural rights of men and women. As long as the Government fulfils this function,
the laws that it has passed are legitimate and binding, but as long if it fails to comply with it,
the laws will have no meaning and the Government could be expelled from power. From
Locke's point of view, unlimited authority is contradictory to natural law.

John Locke thus supported the idea of a state of liberty, not of a licence. Locke proposed a
democracy for the common good of the people. He begged for a legally restricted
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 offered a modern understanding of the
Social Contract Principle in his work "The Social Contract" and "Emile." According to him,
the social contract is not a factual reality, it is a fictional construction of reason. Before the
Social Contract, life in the State of Nature was peaceful and there was harmony for men.
However, as time progressed, mankind was met with such changes. As the mass population
grew, the means by which people could meet their desires had to change. People started to
live together steadily in small groups, and then in larger groups. Divisions of labour have
been created, both within and between families, and discoveries and innovations have made
life simpler, giving rise to leisure time. Such leisure time has inevitably led people to make
comparisons between themselves and others, resulting in public values, leading to shame and
envy, pride and contempt. Most important, however, according to Rousseau, was the
invention of private property, which constituted the pivotal moment of human evolution from
a simple, pure state to one characterised by greed, competition, vanity, inequality and vice.
For Rousseau, the invention of land is the collapse of mankind out of the State of Existence.
To this end, they sacrificed their rights not to a single person, but to the society as a whole,
which Rousseau called general.

According to Rousseau, the original freedom, happiness, equality and freedom which existed
in primitive societies before the social contract was lost in modern civilisation. Via the Social
Contract, a modern system of social organisation — a state — was created to protect and
guarantee liberty, freedoms and equality. The nature of Rousseau 's philosophy of the General
Will is that the State and the Law were the result of the General Will of the People. The State
and the Laws are made by it, and if the Government and the Laws do not comply with the
General Laws, they will be rejected. Although different persons have their natural rights, in
exchange they have civil liberties such as freedom of expression, liberty, assembly, etc.

The General Will was therefore the will of the majority of men to whom blind loyalty was to
be provided for all purposes. The plurality was accepted under the basis that the majority
opinion is valid rather than the minority view. Each individual is not subject to any other
individual, but to the general consensus, and to obey this is to obey himself. His sovereignty
is infallible, indivisible, unrepresentable and boundless.

Thus, Rousseau favoured the sovereignty of the people. His philosophy of moral law is
limited to the individual's rights and freedom. The synonymous words, for them, are Society,
statute, sovereignty, general will etc. The theory of Rousseau inspired and encouraged French
and American revolutions. The theory that man is born free, but he is in chains everywhere he
is. he is free.

COMPARISION OF THE THEORY OF SOCIAL CONTRACT OF THOMAS

HOBBES, JOHN LOCKE AND JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU

1. Hobbes asserts that men are necessarily at war without being subject to a shared power of
freedoms and rights. In comparison, Locke and Rousseau shared the opinion that the State
exists to preserve and preserve its people' natural rights. If governments fail to perform this
task, the public have the right and sometimes the obligation to withdraw and rebel.

2. In the opinion of Hobbes, anything the state does is just. All of society is a direct state
creation and a reflection of the governor's will. Locke argues that only ensuring fairness is
perceived is an essential feature of the State. In Rousseau 's view, the State must ensure
freedom and freedom for individuals under all circumstances.

3. The social contract philosophy of Hobbes advocates total freedom without assigning
people much meaning, and Locke and Rousseau endorse people as opposed to states or
government.

4. The sovereign and the government are identical to Hobbes, but Rousseau differentiates the
two. He excludes a proportional government structure. Locke makes no other difference,
though. Rousseau's sovereignty view was a balance between Locke and Hobbes'
constitutionalism.

CRITICAL APPREHENTION
1.Rousseau proposed that the state, the law and the government could be interchanged. Since
the government, but not the regime, may be overthrown. A state exists even there is no
government.

2. In the current scenario, Hobbes' conception of absolutism is completely vague. Democracy

is a necessity, and Burma and other nations can take examples.

3. The sovereign should have absolute authority, according to Hobbes. This is contrary to the
rule of law, because absolute power is arbitrary in one authority.

4. The locked nature principle is unclear and any land dispute in any culture still leads to
destruction. Therefore, if they have disputes in terms of land, a community can not live in
harmony.

5. Laissez-faire's lock idea is not about social security. Each state is now taking steps in this
scenario to establish a welfare state