Social Contract Theory: Three Views

Hobbes 'Leviathan', Locke's 'Balance of Power' & Rosseau's 'General Will' still a relevant consideration

Social Contract Theory is a term used in political philosophy. While its roots date back to Plato’s dialogues, foremost being The Republic, in more modern times three of the great formulators of this concept were Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) John Locke (1632-1704), and Jean-Jacques Rosseau (1712-1778). The first two were British, the latter French.

Their respective views have had a profound influence on Western Thought, with both supporters and detractors. In the United States, our founding documents—the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution—were the result of that dialogue, with Locke’s theory having a major impact.

Each of them wrote long, detailed discourses on this topic, along with other aspects of philosophical thought—the political mingled in with their respective views on morality and metaphysics—so that attempting a brief summary only scratches the surface. But scratching the surface is often what commentary is all about.

Their respective theories begin with mankind in a State of Nature, what that entailed, and how it led—or should lead—to the organizing of society in general and government in particular.

Dr. Arthur Holmes, the late professor of philosophy at Wheaton College in Illinois, told his students in a lecture that an ethical system is usually influenced by a philosopher’s metaphysics. The same could be said, at least in the case of Social Contract Theory, with a writer’s background and the times in which they lived in.

Thomas Hobbes came of age during the dawning of the Scientific Revolution, with its mechanistic view that the universe is produced by nothing other than matter in motion and that it could be “both described and predicted in accordance with universal laws of nature.”

Influenced by that view, he felt that “Humans are essentially very complicated organic machines, responding to the stimuli of the world mechanistically and that they too followed certain universal laws, only in their case it would be those of human nature.”

As such, he did not believe that moral terms were objective (as in the realm of Plato’s Ideas or God-given commandments), “but rather reflections of individual tastes and preferences.”

Self-interest, he stated, was the primary motivating force. People respond to what they desire and are repelled by what is threatening and adverse, calling the former moral and the latter immoral.

To Hobbes, a hypothetical State of Nature would be one that is ruled by personal self-interest and where everyone has the right to everything, with no limits on natural liberty. As he described it, living there would be a brutal, dog-eat-dog affair with everyone fighting over limited resources and co-operation impossible due to mutual distrust.

In the extreme, it would be a perpetual war-like state where we have the right to kill another if your survival is threatened, but where someone else can do the same to us While the strong might have an advantage, even they can be brought down. Thus, everyone would be living with “the continual fear and danger of violent death.”

Hobbes lived during the violence and turmoil of the English Civil War that took place in the 1640s and so may be forgiven for his dark observation.

On one side of that conflict was King Charles I and his backers (known as the Cavaliers) who supported the traditional authority of a monarch. On the other stood the Parliamentarians (or Puritans)—led by Oliver Cromwell—who demanded more power for this quasi-democratic institution.

As a Royalist, Hobbes feared for his well-being and fled to France, staying there for 11 years. As for the King, he was beheaded in January 1649.

There is a caveat to the dismal and brutal state of affairs that Hobbes portrays. While human beings possess an inherent instinct for self-interest, the primary one being self-preservation, they also have a rational capacity; an intellect that allows them to pursue their self-interest in an efficient and purposeful manner through trade-offs and an understanding of long-term benefits.

As rational beings, they can see the means of creating a civil society. The first step—a law of human nature—is that each person will pursue peace when others are willing to do the same, but with the understanding that they will pursue war when others do not pursue peace.

To create a civilized society that provides a peaceful and secure existence, along with the trust and co-operation necessary to build economic prosperity and stable institutions—and for morality and immorality to have tangible meanings—a social contract needs to be established.

In Hobbes’ view, the pact possesses two parts. First, people must agree “to establish society by collectively and reciprocally renouncing the rights they had to act unilaterally against one another in the State of Nature.” Second, they must grant someone or a group of somebodies with the absolute authority and power to enforce the first part of the contract.

He referred to this powerful authority as the Leviathan, named after the sea monster in the Old Testament. It was also the title of his book, published in 1651, where he spelled out his overall theory.

His premise that people would willingly surrender their unconstrained freedom to act in their self-interest in exchange for a protected and more secure life, one that operates under a system of laws, enforced by the Leviathan, rests on the belief that no rational person would want to return to a State of Nature.

Hobbes’ theory has proven influential. One can see echoes of it in societies—past and present—that have authoritarian governments. But as might be expected, not everyone embraced it.

Among those who proposed a different Social Contract Theory was his fellow countryman, John Locke.

The two men were separated in age by 44 years, with Locke residing in a more peaceful time. Whether that was the cause or not, he certainly had a more benign take on the State of Nature.

To him, it is “the natural condition of mankind” where humans live in “a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one’s life as one best sees fit, free from the interference.”

However, he does not claim that this is a ‘state of license’ where ‘anything goes’ and self-interest rules the day. His distinction, and where he differs from Hobbes, is that while a State of Nature does not have a civil authority, with a government to enforce laws and punish transgressions, there is still morality.

“The State of Nature is pre-political, but it is not pre-moral” is how one commentator put it.

Locke felt that there is a Law of Nature, one given to humans by God’s commands, that is “the basis for all morality.” This moral precept includes the dictate that “we not harm others with regards to their life, health, liberty, or possessions... and that we all belong equally to God.”

He put forth the proposition—quite familiar with Americans—that as God’s creations each person has inalienable natural rights and duties.

While he had a favorable opinion on the State of Nature, Locke nevertheless thought people were better off establishing a social contract among themselves, since government—through its laws—offers the means to protect the right to property (people acquiring wealth) and to ensure ‘the peace, safety, and public good of the people.’

Far from having the Leviathan run the show, Locke proposed a government, with power divided between the Legislative and Executive. It was the French jurist Montesquieu who suggested an independent Judiciary as a third branch under this scheme, an idea that America’s founders embraced.

He also spelled out the right of the governed, under the Social Contract, to replace an unjust or immoral government—which in Great Britain would be headed by a King or Queen, who at that time held actual power, along with the Parliament. The Americans, of course, took it a step further and got rid of British rule entirely and established an independent nation.

Then we come to Jean-Jacques Rousseau who had a Social Contract Theory as different from Hobbes as day and night, although arguably just as extreme in its view in regard to human behavior.

While Hobbes saw the State of Nature as brutal, Rousseau regarded it as an earthly paradise—peaceful and harmonious.

As one commentator summarized it, “People lived solitary, uncomplicated lives. Their few needs were easily satisfied by nature. Because of the abundance of nature and the small size of the population, competition was non-existent.”

Having solitary lifestyles, persons rarely came into contact with each other which minimalized the possibility of conflict and fear. And far from having a violent outcome when interacting with each other, they had “a capacity for pity” and, as such, “were not inclined to bring harm to another.”

But a snake arrived in this Garden of Eden, a growing population (I guess they weren’t solitary all of the time) led to scarcer resources, smaller families evolved and then small communities which resulted in the division of labor, and inventions led to leisure time and different standards of living.

From there came shame and envy, along with pride and contempt.

Worst of all, in his judgment, came the invention of private property—“a pivotal moment in humanity’s evolution out of a simple, pure state into one characterized by greed, competition, vanity, inequality, and vice.”

From there come different socials classes, various inequalities, and the use of government—not to guarantee equality and protection for all, as it should—but to enforce the interests of the rich and powerful who have gained that status through ownership of property.

His book, The Social Contract, begins with the line: “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains.”

Rousseau’s prescription for curing this situation, the ills of inequality, was not to return to a State of Nature, but rather to recognize what happened and to restore individual freedom by means of a different Social Contract, “reconciling who we truly and essentially are with how we live together.”

The question he poises is: How can we be free and live together” or, put another way, How can we live together without succumbing to the force and coercion of others?

Under Rosseau’s theory, people would transfer their individual interests, via a social pact, “to form a collective whole called the state or the sovereign, and through this entity enact laws reflective of the general will.

A few important points to bring this theory into focus:

--The state or sovereign is more than the sum of its members, but rather an entity in its own right, a moral person, a nonbiological organism that has its own life and will. It would be akin to saying a football team is more than just a group of players.

--The ‘general’ will define what the common good is, thereby determining what is right and wrong, and what should and should not be done.

--The ‘general will' is determined by a vote of the whole community, acting in unison. Decisions, if they are to reflect the general will, cannot be delegated to representatives acting on others’ behalf.

--Anyone who disobeys the consensus “will be forced to be free,” meaning that citizens must obey the laws or be forced to do so as long as they remain a resident of the state. Under the social contract, individuals have given up their State-of-Nature liberty to form a collective whole, but (in doing so) gain a ‘civil’ liberty. According to Rousseau, men are obligated to obey because it is through laws formed by this ‘civil’ state that security, justice, liberty, and property are protected and enjoyed by all.

The philosopher is saying, in a sense, that individuals don’t always know what’s best for them, so they need some persuading.

--The agreement has an escape clause. Citizens of the state have the right at any time to terminate the social contract and form a new, different one. They also have the right at any time to dispose of the officials of the state if they feel their actions are not in accordance with the general will.

Rousseau’s theory, in practical application, would require the institution of a direct form of democracy where individuals come together periodically to make decisions on how to live together (social arrangements) and what laws to enact (government).

This would be akin to a New-England town meeting where every stakeholder has an equal say.

In a large and diverse nation like the United States, a more direct form participatory democracy might be possible at the local level, but it’s obviously not possible at the state and federal levels. Representative democracy is what we’ve had, and what we hope to maintain. That acknowledgment made, the unencumbered right to vote and having a representative government that is as fair and reflective of actual public sentiment as possible is a nod in that direction.

Rousseau lived and wrote during the period we refer to as the Enlightenment or Age of Reason. His fellow countryman, Voltaire, was a contemporary—both of them dying in 1778, which was shortly after the start of the American Revolution.

They and others of that period questioned the Divine Right of Kings, challenged the prevailing Christian dogma, and advocated for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state.

It’s easy enough to see the appeal Rousseau’s Theory had for those championing the cause of a more just society and having a more direct voice in governance—both during the 18^th century and since. As for his influence on American political leaders of that period, the opening line of our U.S. Constitution “We the People, in Order to Form a More Perfect Union…” echoes his explanation of the sovereign. On the other hand, the “forced to be free” clause precludes individual or minority rights in favor of the majority’s authority which, as history has shown, can become tyrannical or authoritarian.

So, there you have three different views of society, government, and an individual’s place within the social and political arrangements. Examples of political philosophy that have had real-life applications as well as legacies that have, each in their own way, evolved over the ensuing centuries and are still evolving.

Steve Horton is a mid-Michigan journalist.