The Social Contract
Why do we obey the state? Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.
Why Government?
The social contract tradition asks a fundamental question: what justifies political authority? Why should anyone obey laws they didn't personally create?
Hobbes: Fear of the State of Nature
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) argued that without government, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." In the state of nature, everyone has the right to everything, which means constant war. We agree to surrender some freedom to a sovereign power in exchange for security.
Locke: Natural Rights and Consent
John Locke (1632-1704) took a more optimistic view. People have natural rights — life, liberty, and property — that exist before any government. Government's job is to protect these rights. If it fails, the people have the right to revolution.
Rousseau: The General Will
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) argued that the social contract should express the "general will" — what is best for everyone, not just the majority. True freedom means obeying laws you give yourself as part of a community.
Why It Matters Today
Every debate about government authority — taxation, surveillance, vaccine mandates, military conscription — is implicitly a debate about the social contract. What have we agreed to? What can the state demand of us?
Discussion Prompt
Which version of the social contract do you find most convincing — Hobbes's (security), Locke's (rights), or Rousseau's (collective will)? What problems do you see with each?
Practice Question
South Korea requires all male citizens to serve in the military. Is this justified under social contract theory? Which version of the social contract (Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau) best supports or challenges conscription?
This is for your own reflection. Use the Dilemma Generator for AI-graded analysis.