Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau
The Social Contract
All three philosophers have similar worldviews when it comes to humans getting
along in a social community. They all embrace the concept of a social contract and
recognize the primitive nature of humans. All three philosophers share the similar
worldview that religion cannot be the central focus of civic law for interpreting religious
beliefs would bring about squabbles and injustice. If we look to the bible regarding that
worldview, in Mark 3:24 “if a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot
stand”. If America’s Department Of Justice were run by religion, we would either not
have so much diversity, or we would be at constant struggle over beliefs and the
incarceration rate over religious crimes would be massive. Without religion at the head of
a nation, God’s grace becomes more evident! “Let every person be subject to the
governing authorities. For there is no authority except God, and those that exist have been
instituted by God” Romans 13:1 (ESV).
Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes believed that one central form of government must dictate all
matters of civic life including belief systems; therefore, the government should dictate
religious matters. Hobbes held that political power must be consented by the people who
give up their natural rights in order to elect to be represented by a representative who will
bring the protection of life, property, and order. “Where no covenant has proceeded, no
rights have been relinquished or transferred, and each man has a right to everything”
(Strauss, Cropsey 1987, 403). In his worldview, the law should be kept at a liberal
interpretation where things are only illegal if the law clearly forbids that action and
people are free to go about their way and do as they please as long as they don’t break a
law.
His philosophy can be contrasted to modern Public Education policy where God
and religion have been removed and replaced by a more humanistic model that has ben
adopted and it is now dictated by a policy that schools shall not teach about religion and
stay away from talking about God for they may offend someone of differing beliefs.
Rousseau
Jean-Jacques Rousseau focused much on the social contract that men make
among each other, he believes this contract saves humans from their primitive nature, for
human primitive nature is what makes humans susceptible to be captured in bond and be
bonded to one power or another. Rousseau believes that humans are born primitive and
even though it is their natural right to be free humans have a tendency to remain in chains
bonded; “Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (Strauss, Cropsey 1987,
559).
Rousseau believes that division of labor and preservation of private property
requires humans to establish institutions of law for in order to remain free humans must
enter a social contract in which they agree to covenants that can guarantee freedom but
for which they must give up their natural rights. “Civil society is not natural, it is
conventional; therefore if there is to be any legitimacy in the laws of civil society, its
conventions must be founded on that first nature” (Strauss, Cropsey 1987, 562).
Locke
John Locke focused on the self, the individual—the count of one, and how much
right to life, liberty and property an individual can have and be just. He delved into what
is legal and just for the individual to own. Locke largely focused on the subject of
ownership rights and the topic of private property. Locke believes each person is entitled
by nature to own and accumulates as much wealth as that person desires to have. This is
what makes Locke unique to all others. There is too much good to talk about John Locke
for a short post. Locke assumes the majority has the last say on social and civic debates
and therefore the majority holds the power to overrule. “Majority will be the greater force
and that therefore the majority will rule” (Strauss, Cropsey 1987, 499).
Thanks to Locke’s philosophies we have religious liberty to practice any belief
we please which, is one of the biggest liberties a human can have. We also have the
liberty to accumulate wealth, private property and the right to own material possessions
without limits. In his worldview, a human has a natural and legal right to own as much as
he can accumulate as long as it won't parish and spoil under accumulation for as long as
what a person accumulates does not spoil it does not harm any other person or the
balance of nature.
References
Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. 1987. “History of political philosophy.” University of
Chicago Press.
