The Origins and Implications of the Social Contract: Essays by Locke, Hume, and Rousseau
Introduction
The social contract is one of the most influential and controversial concepts in political philosophy. It refers to the idea that human beings voluntarily agree to form a political society and accept certain rules and obligations in exchange for some benefits. But what exactly is the social contract? Why do people need it? And what are its implications for political authority, rights, and justice?
social contract essays by locke hume and rousseau pdf 15
In this article, we will explore these questions by examining three classic essays on the social contract by three prominent thinkers of the Enlightenment era: John Locke, David Hume, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These essays represent different perspectives on the nature, origin, purpose, and limits of government, as well as the rights and duties of citizens. We will analyze their main arguments, compare their similarities and differences, and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.
John Locke's essay
John Locke (1632-1704) was an English philosopher who is widely regarded as one of the founders of liberalism. His essay An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government, also known as The Second Treatise of Government, was published in 1689 as a response to the political turmoil in England following the Glorious Revolution. In this essay, Locke defends the idea that people have natural rights that precede and limit the authority of government.
The state of nature and the natural rights
Locke begins his essay by describing the state of nature, which is a hypothetical condition before the emergence of civil society. In this state, people are free, equal, rational, and independent. They have natural rights to life, liberty, health, property, etc., which are derived from their own nature and from God's law. They also have natural laws that oblige them to preserve themselves and others, to respect each other's rights, to seek peace, to punish wrongdoers, etc.
However, Locke acknowledges that the state of nature is not a state of perfect harmony and happiness. There are inconveniences and dangers that arise from the scarcity of resources, the uncertainty of justice, the possibility of conflict, etc. Therefore, people have a reason to seek a more secure and comfortable condition, which is the civil society.
The formation and purpose of civil government
Locke argues that people form a civil society by consenting to a social contract, which is an agreement to give up some of their natural rights and powers to a common authority that will protect their remaining rights and provide public goods. The social contract is not a historical event, but a rational and moral act that creates a political community. The common authority that results from the social contract is the civil government, which is a trustee or agent of the people.
The main purpose of civil government, according to Locke, is to secure the natural rights of the people, especially their property rights. Property, for Locke, includes not only material goods, but also one's life, liberty, labor, etc. Locke argues that people have a right to acquire property by mixing their labor with the common resources of nature, as long as they leave enough and as good for others. He also argues that people have a right to exchange, transfer, inherit, and bequeath their property according to their own will and consent.
The main limit of civil government, according to Locke, is the consent of the governed. Locke maintains that people do not give up their natural rights completely or irrevocably when they enter the civil society. They retain some rights that are inalienable, such as the right to life and liberty. They also retain the right to revoke their consent and withdraw from the civil society if the government fails to fulfill its obligations or violates their rights. In other words, people have a right to resist or overthrow a tyrannical or ineffective government.
The dissolution and alteration of government
Locke distinguishes between two types of government: legislative and executive. The legislative power is the supreme power that makes laws for the common good. The executive power is the subordinate power that enforces and executes the laws. Locke argues that both powers are derived from the consent of the people and are accountable to them. He also argues that both powers are separable and changeable, meaning that they can be divided among different bodies or persons and can be altered or replaced by the people.
Locke identifies several scenarios in which the government can be dissolved or altered by the people. One scenario is when the legislative power is dissolved by being usurped, altered, or neglected by the executive power. Another scenario is when the executive power is dissolved by being usurped, abused, or corrupted by a foreign or domestic force. A third scenario is when both powers are dissolved by being returned to the people by their own consent or by force. In any of these scenarios, Locke argues that the people have a right to establish a new government that will better serve their interests and protect their rights.
David Hume's essay
David Hume (1711-1776) was a Scottish philosopher who is widely regarded as one of the most influential empiricists and skeptics in history. His essay Of the Original Contract was published in 1748 as part of his collection Essays Moral Political and Literary. In this essay, Hume challenges the idea that there is a rational or moral basis for political obligation and resistance.
The critique of the original contract
Hume begins his essay by criticizing the notion of an original contract, which is a hypothetical agreement between the rulers and the ruled that establishes and legitimizes government. He argues that such a contract is neither historical nor hypothetical. He claims that there is no historical evidence that such a contract ever existed or was ever consented to by all or most of the people. He also claims that there is no hypothetical reason why such a contract would be valid or binding on future generations who did not consent to it.
Hume also questions the usefulness and relevance of an original contract for explaining or justifying political obligation and resistance. He argues that an original contract cannot explain why people obey the government in practice, since most people are ignorant or indifferent about its terms and conditions. He also argues that an original contract cannot justify why people should obey the government in principle, since it does not provide any clear or consistent criteria for determining when the government has breached its obligations or violated its limits.
The alternative foundation of government
Hume proposes an alternative foundation of government that is based on habit, custom, and utility rather than consent or natural rights. He argues that government is a human invention that arises from experience and observation rather than reason or morality. He claims that people obey the government because they are accustomed to do so by habit and utility rather than consent or natural rights. He claims that people obey the government because they are accustomed to do so by habit, which is formed by repeated experience and reinforced by education and opinion. He also claims that people should obey the government because it is useful and beneficial for them, since it provides order, security, justice, and peace.
The implications for political obligation and resistance
Hume draws some implications for political obligation and resistance from his alternative foundation of government. He argues that political obligation is not a matter of duty or right, but of prudence and interest. He claims that people should obey the government as long as it serves their common interest and does not harm their individual interest too much. He also claims that people should resist the government only when it becomes intolerable and oppressive, and when they have a reasonable chance of success. He warns against frequent or violent resistance, which he thinks would be more harmful than beneficial for society.
Conclusion
In this article, we have explored three classic essays on the social contract by Locke, Hume, and Rousseau. We have seen how they differ in their views on human nature, natural rights, political authority, political obligation, and political resistance. We have also seen how they share some common themes and concerns, such as the problem of civil society and inequality, the role of consent and contract in politics, and the quest for freedom and justice.
Locke's essay presents a liberal and individualistic vision of the social contract that emphasizes natural rights, limited government, property rights, and popular sovereignty. Hume's essay offers a skeptical and utilitarian critique of the social contract that stresses habit, custom and utility rather than consent or natural rights. He claims that people obey the government because they are accustomed to do so by habit, which is formed by repeated experience and reinforced by education and opinion. He also claims that people should obey the government because it is useful and beneficial for them, since it provides order, security, justice, and peace.
The implications for political obligation and resistance
Hume draws some implications for political obligation and resistance from his alternative foundation of government. He argues that political obligation is not a matter of duty or right, but of prudence and interest. He claims that people should obey the government as long as it serves their common interest and does not harm their individual interest too much. He also claims that people should resist the government only when it becomes intolerable and oppressive, and when they have a reasonable chance of success. He warns against frequent or violent resistance, which he thinks would be more harmful than beneficial for society.
Conclusion
In this article, we have explored three classic essays on the social contract by Locke, Hume, and Rousseau. We have seen how they differ in their views on human nature, natural rights, political authority, political obligation, and political resistance. We have also seen how they share some common themes and concerns, such as the problem of civil society and inequality, the role of consent and contract in politics, and the quest for freedom and justice.
Locke's essay presents a liberal and individualistic vision of the social contract that emphasizes natural rights, limited government, property rights, and popular sovereignty. Hume's essay offers a skeptical and utilitarian critique of the social contract that stresses habit, custom and utility rather than consent or natural rights. Rousseau's essay proposes a radical and romantic vision of the social contract that emphasizes common good, general will, civic freedom, and popular sovereignty.
These essays have had a lasting impact on political thought and practice. They have inspired various movements and revolutions that have shaped the modern world. They have also provoked various debates and criticisms that have enriched our understanding of politics and society. They remain relevant and challenging for anyone who is interested in the questions of how we should live together and what we owe to each other.
FAQs
Q: What is the social contract?
A: The social contract is a concept in political philosophy that refers to the idea that human beings voluntarily agree to form a political society and accept certain rules and obligations in exchange for some benefits.
Q: Who are the main thinkers of the social contract theory?
A: The main thinkers of the social contract theory are John Locke, David Hume, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. They wrote three classic essays on the social contract in the 17th and 18th centuries.
Q: What are the main differences between Locke's, Hume's, and Rousseau's views on the social contract?
A: Locke's view is based on natural rights, limited government, property rights, and popular sovereignty. Hume's view is based on habit, custom and utility rather than consent or natural rights. Rousseau's view is based on common good, general will, civic freedom, and popular sovereignty.
Q: What are the main similarities between Locke's, Hume's, and Rousseau's views on the social contract?
A: The main similarities are that they all address the problem of civil society and inequality, they all use the idea of consent and contract in politics, and they all seek to achieve freedom and justice.
Q: Why are these essays important and relevant today?
A: These essays are important and relevant today because they have influenced various political movements and revolutions that have shaped the modern world. They also raise fundamental questions about how we should live together and what we owe to each other.
71b2f0854b