All mankind… All being equal and independent, no-one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions.

John Locke – The Second Treatise of Government (1689)

The Social Contract is a political concept developed by philosophers, first by Plato and Socrates, and then developed more during the Enlightenment, particularly by Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and  John Locke. In the 20th century, John Rawls also contibuted to the theory.

The main topic is about the authority of a government over its citizens. It discusses topics such as: What are the benefits of living in a society? What are the benefits and protection we hope to gain? Which natural rights should we give up, and what rights do we retain? To what extent should we follow a ruler’s will? And when is it justified to stop obeying and oppose the government?

 

In Essence

The Social Contract means that there is an implied agreement between individuals and the society / government which he belongs to. By being part of a society, you thereby give up some of your natural “freedoms” and conform to the laws of the community. In return, you get all the benefits of belonging to a modern society: safety, justice, education and stability.  This unwritten contract that we all adhere to is what keeps society functioning, 

This theory is an important development in political freedom and morality, since the theory is based on natural rights to natural law, rather than a theological standpoint, which used to dominate the whole field. It made leaps forwards in terms of discussing a more secular morality and ethics. 

The philosophers that we are going to talk about today are discussing the same thing (The Social Contract), but they each bring their own principles and experiences to their theories. It’s interesting how much their different moralities and understanding of the human condition influences their way of thinking. The exchange of ideas, one building on top of the other is one of the greatest things about philosophy.

Hobbes’ Leviathan

At the age of 64 in 1642, Thomas Hobbes experienced the English Civil War, a deadly war between the King and Parliament, that killed 200.000 people, this event was deeply important to Hobbes’ way of thinking, and influenced his best work “Leviathan”, published in 1651. A piece of literature on why people should obey their governments, to avoid chaos and bloodshed like the civil war he went through. This book sets the foundations of the Social Contract, which will be argued and improved for hundreds of years to come, influencing all of our lives.

Back in the middle ages, the question of why the people should obey their governments was usually answered with the “Divine Right of Kings”. This theory states that God is the one that appoints these kings, and we should all obey their authority because it’s God’s Will, and you’ll burn in hell if you disobey. But this argument is proving to be ineffective on these thoughtful philosophers. Hobbes challenged the “divine right of kings”, very radically for his time, he argued that political authority and obligation are based on the individual self-interests of members of society who are understood to be equal to one another, with no single individual invested with any essential authority to rule over the rest. That the power to rule does not rest with the King himself, but on the people that support his rule. And therefore we should only obey his authority when things work out for the people, where the best interest of the people and the King are aligned.

So begins the modern Social Contract theory. However, there is a problem that presents itself: what if the people start to oppose their rulers whenever things don’t work out in their favor? Hobbes thought back to the violence of the English Civil War, and he dedicated the rest of his life to make sure such mindless violence will not happen again. Thus he wrote Leviathan, in it, he tries to find a compromise between the then radical social contract theory with the rather conservative thought of total obedience to authority.

 

Hobbes’ State of Nature

He began with the concept called the State of Nature, to Hobbes, this is why we should have a government in the first place. Hobbes argued that before we live in a governed, civil society, we lived in a hypothetical state of nature, where there are no laws to protect us. We are constantly in endless brutal competition for survival and resources.

“During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition called war, and such a war, as if every man, against every man. To this war of every man against every man, this is also in consequence, that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice. Force, and fraud, are in war the cardinal virtues.”

“No arts; no letters; no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

Thomas Hobbes – Leviathan (1651)

In Hobbes’ eyes, humans were self-interested, but can also be rational. To escape this state of eternal conflict,  they could be expected to construct a social contract that will give them benefits and protection, the kind where a state of nature never could.

 

Escaping the state of nature

To escape the state of nature, they first have to agree to build a society, and to live under common rules, therefore giving up some of their natural rights, in return getting all the benefits of a society.

This primitive state of nature is what Hobbes wants to avoid, this is why he would prefer an incompetent or even malevolent sovereign authority rather than devolve back to the violent state of nature. To establish order instead of chaos. 

 Though of so unlimited a power, men may fancy many evil consequences, yet the consequences of the want of it, which is perpetual war of every man against his neighbor, are much worse. 

Thomas Hobbes

Hobbes was an interesting political philosopher, he held radical (for his time) ideas such as challenging “the right of kings”, and that political authority should be based on the self interest of equal members of society. But also conservative ideas, that we should submit to the power of the sovereign, no matter how badly they treat their subjects. This is all stemming from his fear of the state of nature, a war of all against all.

Of course, Hobbes has a pessimistic view of the human condition, and his position of absolute obedience towards your ruler, however bad he may be, is not a notion I subscribe to. It’s our time to prove that to bring forth change for the better, we don’t need violence and force. That we can and should demand better from our sovereigns.

Rousseau’s Social Contract

 Jean-Jacques Rousseau was another important philosopher, and his ideas are almost the opposite of Locke’s. He believes that the innate goodness of man was corrupted by society. Rousseau’s ideas were also influential during the French Revolution, and kick-started the Romantic Movement.

In 18th century Europe, modern society views itself as moving away from primitive savagery and ignorance to a modern, technological civilization. Rousseau viewed things differently. He saw that there are problems that exist in a society that would never have happened in a state of nature.

 

Rousseau’s State of Nature

Unlike Thomas Hobbes who viewed the state of nature as a negative, Rousseau instead saw it as a beautiful moment where humanity is not plagued with greediness or sin. That even with the impressive advances of civilization, we are not living better lives than before. 

Rousseau is in love with his own ideal “State of Nature”. A long time ago, where men and women lived satisfying, uncomplicated lives, supported by the essential pillars such as a loving family, respecting nature, sympathy for others, and other simple entertainments. He believed that in a state of nature, there is no way for people to actively hate and destroy each other, since corrupting views can only be gotten from a form of society. 

Most of Rousseau’s arguments are misconstrued as if he believed that every human being was inherently good and perfect. In reality, he thought that the extent of people being “good” to each other meant that they were not actively trying to harm each other, at the very least.

“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau – The Social Contract (1762)

What society has corrupted us into, argued Rousseau, is a state of artificial pride, jealousy and vanity. Values that simply do not exist in his hypothetical state of nature. People began to not think about what they want out of life, but started to imitate other people’s standard of an “ideal life”. And by trying to imitate others and simultaneously comparing them to yourself, it creates a sense of self-worth that will never be enough, leading to an unhappy life. 

Rousseau’s work has been inspired by the recent events that happened during his timeline, namely, the stories about Native Americans. They were described as small, tightly-knit communities with a rich culture and proud heritage. But when the Europeans arrived, they corrupted the natives with notions of wealth, technology and status, starting the destruction of their cultural identity. Modern society has once again destroyed an innocent state of nature.

 

The Social Contract

Democracy

Rousseau knows that there is no way for us to truly go back to a state of nature, so the only way a society could be formed is through a social contract, the purpose of politics would be to regain our lost values. He also believed that personal freedom and political power would need to be in balance in an effective, active society, that this balance would be kept by the concept of a general will, his big contribution to the world of political philosophy.

The general will is the collective will of a society, a rational agreement between free and equal people. Like individual wills are intended for individual purposes, the general will is directed towards the common good. 

“Rousseau’s social contract theories together form a single, consistent view of our moral and political situation. We are endowed with freedom and equality by nature, but our nature has been corrupted by our contingent social history. We can overcome this corruption, however, by invoking our free will to reconstitute ourselves politically, along strongly democratic principles, which is good for us, both individually and collectively.” – IE Philosophy

Freedom is the power to choose your own chains

This is how to live together as a free and equal society according to Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A form of strong, direct democracy. The community then is an abstract idea, one that is part of every individual. To act morally is to act according to the common good. With natural liberty behind us, we achieve something greater, a form of civil liberty.

Locke’s Contribution

John Locke is one of the most influential Enlightenment philosophers that ever existed. Named the father of classical liberalism, he also made huge strides in empiricism, epistemology, and our topic today, the social contract theory. He influenced the works of many philosophers; David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and also Jean-Jacques Rousseau. While his works regarding religious freedoms, education, toleration and politics are uncontroversial and accepted by society today, back then these ideas were highly radical and unorthodox. Locke’s ideas also helped shape western societies, and many democratic revolutions, such as the founding of the United States.

 

Two Treatises of Government

One of John Locke’s most recognizable works is the Two Treatises of Government. It was published in 1689, and consists of a refutation to a divine right monarchy, and also discusses the nature of governments.

It starts with the first treatise, like Hobbes, Locke also dismantled the “Divine Right of Kings” concept. Back in the day, people believed that God gave the world to Adam and his heirs. Therefore the right to rule is inherited, and grows stronger the closer your relations are to Adam. There even used to be scribes that you can hire to make up a family tree that will “prove” that you are directly descended from Adam, proving your superiority and divine authority to others. Locke thinks that this nonsense, the argument he fired back is that God gave the earth to humanity as a whole, we all have a claim for the common lands, and we also have responsibilities to preserve it.

After he established that political power is not divinely given, Locke took on Hobbes’ concepts. Locke agreed with Hobbes that before governments, there exists a state of nature, but his views are far more optimistic than Hobbes’ dark picture of the human condition.  Locke thinks that people are usually good-natured, and could often be depended on to fulfill their promises. So the state of nature wouldn’t necessarily be a vicious place, but a very inefficient one.

The state of nature would be inefficient because everybody has to protect their own rights. You can’t leave your house for too long because there are no guarantees that it wouldn’t be broken in. You can’t expect for your crops to be safe because there is no common power to keep people in check. So your life would be a constant juggling of making sure your family is safe, and your property isn’t stolen.

For Locke, the main reason to leave the state of nature and into a society is preservation of property, and increasing productivity.

The idea of property is very important to Locke. He invented a concept called the Workmanship Ideal. The basic gist of it is that we own what we make, provided we don’t waste it. When you mix natural resources with your own labour, you earn the right to call it yours. As long as there is as much and as good left for others, we all have a right to use these resources, but not to prevent others from using them.

The end of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge

John Locke

Locke states that by joining a society and “signing” the social contract, people voluntarily gave up some of their freedoms, in order to preserve their rights. These rights that we have gained by joining a society are inalienable, and cannot be taken away, even by a sovereign entity. If the executive powers of a government are twisted into tyranny, you have a right, even an obligation, to resist it. From there, you set up a new government, and establish new rules to make sure it does not happen again.

For Locke, these are the situations where resisting the government isn’t only allowed, but is encouraged. Unlike Hobbes who advocates for total obedience to any lengths short of death, Locke thinks that when a governmental body no longer holds the interest of its society, and is actively working against them, that the government has violated the social contract, and is in a state of war against its people. Of course, there are limits on how you do it, I don’t think even Locke condones using violence against a wayward government.

 

A Letter Concerning Toleration

The Protestant Reformation

Another important achievement that Locke made is on the matter of religious toleration (A personal favorite topic of mine). In 1689 England, there was a rising divide between Protestant and Catholic faiths, the authority of the Pope and the Church as a whole was called into question. It was during these times that Locke was convinced that governments should have no authority over matters of personal belief.

It should not be in a government’s authority to enforce religious conformity for several reasons. For one, it would be impossible, since governments are meant to control action, not belief. Belief is a personal, deep connection in your psyche, no outside force can change it. Also, allowing, even encouraging religious diversity can improve a society in many ways. Ideally, the free exchange of ideas and values will lead to productive discussion and intellectual growth.

Another interesting thing about Locke and toleration, is that he thinks there should be limits to its application. What he means is, we should not tolerate the intolerant, especially those who want to forcibly impose their own religious views on other people. And any religious group that threatens the peaceful stability of a society is also not to be tolerated.

 

Some Thoughts Concerning Education

No man’s knowledge can go beyond his Experience

John Locke

“John Locke is widely known to pioneer the concepts of identity, self and consciousness. He believed the human mind to be a clean slate, born without preexisting ideas and that knowledge came with experience.”

Locke wrote one of the most influential letters on education in history. When a friend of Locke’s asked for his advice about raising a child, Locke took on the challenge, even though he was not married, and did not have any children of his own. His series of letters to his friend is eventually compiled in a book, called Some Thoughts Concerning Education. This book spread like wildfire across western society, so much so that Locke is considered an expert on education.

He came up with the concept of Tabula Rasa, that we are all blank slates when we start off in life, and we understand concepts only from experience; what our senses pick up from the outside world, and deep internal reflections. Because of this, what you experience when you were a child is crucial to what you might turn out to be in life.

We are most impressionable when we are children, the ideas we are exposed to when we were young are far more likely to influence how you live your lives than ideas you find later in life. This is because those ideas become fundamental principles where everything your life is based on. Habits you make when you are young are very hard to break later in life.

So, because early experiences are what shapes a child’s future, it is the parent’s responsibility to make sure that their child has a good childhood and quality education. Locke thinks that it is important for children to understand their own actions, and develop a moral sense of their own.

Many of our society’s foundation is based on John Locke’s ideas, that we should tolerate different beliefs, that we believe governments should not tyrannize their people, and why we make it our priority to make sure our children are brought up properly.

Reading furnishes the mind only with materials of knowledge, it is thinking that makes what we read, ours.

John Locke – Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693)

For ordinary people like us, the concept of a peaceful, productive society has always been there. But most of it is thanks to these philosophers, who changed the whole world, an impressive feat considering its set forth by just a handful of thinkers. They have been gone for hundreds of years, but their ideas are still very much relevant to our modern lives.

To Liberty