Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau’s imagination of the social contract theory is one of the oldest philosophical theories on the origin of the state. The social contract is moral and/or political obligation dependent upon a contract or agreement between the people to form society. The social contract theory has three stages of progression- nature of state, contract or covenant, and civil society. These three stages provide the basic differences between the theories of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Hobbes Theory of Social Contract-

According to Hobbes, the state of nature represented the interactions of human beings with each other in the absence of any kind of relations of political authority. In other words, the state of nature represented a state of war. The human nature here was selfish. It was a situation of continuous fear and violence.

Hence, the need arose to have an authority that would enforce the laws of nature and help men to fulfil their desires in a more efficient way. This led to the signing of the social contract between men leading to the formation of a state vas well as sovereign.

Hobbes sovereign had absolute authority. His judgements and actions could not be questioned as opposing the sovereign meant opposing oneself as this sovereign represented the people itself. The only right people had against this all-powerful sovereign was the right to life or self-preservation.

John Locke’s Theory of Social Contract-

Locke’s state of nature is a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance, and preservation. His theory brings out that man is a wise, sociable being who can judge the ill effects of going to war. Locke has a positive view of the state of nature and of human beings.

Locke brings in the concept of private property. He disbelieves in censorship by the state and says that state must exist and function separately from the people. The main goal of state is to ensure the personal safety and protection of personal property rights. If it fails, so he empowered people to revolt against the state and to go for a revolution if it abuses its authority.

Hence, Locke’s view of government is not absolute and is against that of Hobbes. The government’s powers are limited to an extent where it starts encroaching on public good.

Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Theory of Social Contract-

Rousseau’s theory on the state of nature shows in progressive stages how man, from behaving like animals transform themselves into a society. This society, according to Rosseau, is not civil society at all, as it gives rise to more corruption and negative feelings in Man’s mind.

Thus, Rousseau’s view point differs from Hobbes or Locke who believe in the transformation of man from the state of nature to a more ‘civil’ society. The Social Contract, with its famous opening sentence, “Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains”, stated instead that people could only experience freedom if they lived in a civil society that ensured the rights and well-being of its citizens. Being part of such a society involved submitting to the general will- a force that transcended individuals and aimed to uphold the common good.

Conclusion-

Thus, it can be seen that Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all differ in their theories of the Social Contract. All the three theorists start off by describing the state of nature and man’s progression into civil society. They all agree that before man came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature. However, the reasons which force man into such a society differs from one theorist to another. This in turn leads them to have a contrasting view point on the powers and duties of the sovereign as well as the state.

However, despite the differences in their viewpoints, their theories have a common thread which is that the Social Contract is the best way to maintain peace and order.