The question of how societies are formed and what legitimate authority governments wield has been a central concern in social and political philosophy for centuries. Among the most influential frameworks for addressing these questions is social contract theory, which posits that political society arises from an agreement, explicit or implicit, among individuals to surrender certain freedoms in exchange for security and order. Two of the most seminal figures in this tradition are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, whose contrasting views on human nature and the state of nature profoundly shaped their respective conceptions of the social contract and the ideal form of government. While both philosophers agreed that government originates from a voluntary agreement to escape a precarious natural state, their differing perspectives on human motivation and rights led Hobbes to advocate for absolute sovereignty as the only bulwark against chaos, whereas Locke championed a government limited by individual rights and consent.
Hobbes, writing in the tumultuous aftermath of the English Civil War, famously described the "state of nature" in his 1651 work, Leviathan, as a condition of "war of all against all." He believed human beings are fundamentally self-interested, driven by a perpetual and restless desire for power that ceases only in death. In this state, without a common power to keep them all in awe, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." There would be no industry, no agriculture, no arts, no society; only continual fear and the danger of violent death. For Hobbes, the social contract is born out of this dire necessity. Individuals, recognizing that their survival and well-being are jeopardized by this perpetual conflict, rationally agree to surrender all their rights and liberties, except for the right to self-preservation, to an absolute sovereign. This sovereign, whether a monarch or an assembly, is not a party to the contract but its beneficiary, empowered to enforce laws and maintain peace through ultimate authority. The subjects have no right to resist the sovereign, as any challenge would risk a return to the dreaded state of nature.
John Locke, writing a generation later, offered a more optimistic vision in his 1689 Two Treatises of Government. Locke's state of nature is not a state of war, but a state of perfect freedom and equality, governed by the law of nature, which dictates that no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. Reason, according to Locke, teaches all mankind that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another. However, this state of nature, while generally peaceful, lacks an established, known law, an indifferent judge, and the power to execute the law of nature. These deficiencies create inconveniences, such as the potential for individuals to be the judges in their own cases, leading to injustice and conflict. Therefore, individuals enter into a social contract to form a civil society and establish a government.
Crucially, for Locke, individuals do not surrender all their rights to the government. Instead, they delegate specific powers, primarily the power to make and enforce laws, to protect their natural rights to life, liberty, and property. The purpose of government, in Locke's view, is not merely to prevent chaos, but to preserve and protect these pre-existing natural rights. The sovereign power is limited; it is bound by the law of nature and the terms of the trust placed in it by the people. Citizens retain the right to resist and overthrow a government that fundamentally violates their natural rights or acts contrary to the trust reposed in it. This right of revolution is a cornerstone of Locke's philosophy and a significant departure from Hobbes's absolute sovereign.
The divergence between Hobbes and Locke on the nature of man and the state of nature thus leads to fundamentally different conclusions about the purpose and scope of government. Hobbes prioritizes order and security above all else, believing that only an all-powerful sovereign can prevent society from descending into anarchy. His social contract is an act of self-preservation, a surrender of liberty for the sake of life. Locke, on the other hand, sees government as a tool to safeguard inherent individual rights, which pre-exist any governmental authority. His social contract is a mechanism for enhancing liberty and ensuring justice, with the consent of the governed and the right to revolution serving as essential checks on governmental power.