In his book, Leviathan (1651), Hobbes puts forward an argument for a social contract – influenced to some degree by the English Civil War, he suggests that the only way to avoid chaos, civil war and bellum omnium contra omnes (“the war of all against all”) was for individuals to sacrifice some of their 'natural rights', and to institute sovereign central government: the 'Leviathan' for which the book is named. In general terms, a 'social contract' is the imaginary device by which individuals living without government or any form of alliance, come together to form a society and accept some form of obligation to one another, and thereafter binding themselves to a political sovereign whose purpose is to enforce those obligations.
The concept of humankind in its natural state is fundamental to an understanding of how social contracts operate. According to Hobbes' theory, without society, we would live in a 'state of nature', where each individual has unlimited freedoms, or 'Rights of Nature'. He argues that whilst some individuals are more intelligent or stronger than others, nobody is so elevated in ability to be without fear of violent death. Hobbes holds that it is self-defence against such an attack is the highest human necessity, and the ultimate goal of reason. Rights are borne of necessity, and within the state of nature all people have the right to everything and anything there is – and because of this there will be a constant rights-based war of all against all. Hobbes calls life in the state of nature 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'.
The final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as hath been shown, to the natural passions of men when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants...
(Book II, Ch. 17)
Hobbes states that in order to gain lasting self-preservation, the goal of reason, a stable society must be created, and all individuals within that society are required then to relinquish their Right of Nature, and thus enter into a social contract with one another. For example, an individual would cede their right to kill any other individual, provided that every other individual also ceded their right to kill. People agreeing to the contract retain only those rights over others which they are content to allow everybody else to retain over themselves – so in return for being granted freedom of speech, each person must also accept that all other people would be granted freedom of speech also.
However, due to humanity's natural desire for power, the social contract will always be under threat, and a central, sovereign authority must be established in order to force people to uphold it. Such a sovereign would be authorised by the contracted individuals, as part of the contract, possessing the individual powers and wills of all, and sanctioned to judge and punish and person who breaks the contract. Because there is fear of punishment, the presence of the sovereign reinforces the mandates of the laws of nature, hence ensuring the continued operation of the social contract. Hobbes calls this arrangement the 'commonwealth'.
Hobbes accords the sovereign (who may be one person or a number of people, although Hobbes always refers to the sovereign as 'he') twelve rights, covering the sovereign's executive, legislative and judicial rights. It is the strength of this autocratic government, Hobbes argues, that guarantees the continuance of the social contract, and thus protection from the state of nature.
Hobbes' concept of the state of nature, in which 'the notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice... have no place' (Leviathan, Ch. 15), is central to his argument for the social contract. He asserts that, because humanity is naturally inclined to this violent, lawless condition, the social contract must be upheld by aggressive enforcement. It is notable that, amongst social contract theorists, the more chaotic the state of nature is, the greater the advocacy of dictatorial rule. Other theorists have criticised Hobbes' view, arguing that he is fundamentally wrong in his view of human nature.
For example, in the eighteenth century, Rousseau claimed that Hobbes' argument was flawed because he had merely taken socialised individuals and imagined them living without government. Instead, Rousseau suggested that man was instead a 'noble beast', i.e. Without the fetters of civilization, humans are fundamentally good: 'Everything is good as it leaves the hands of the author of things; everything degenerates in the hands of man' (Emile: Or, On Education, 1762). Rousseau argues that the negative influence of society upon humanity is the transformation of amour de soi (self-respect), which is the innate and rational human desire for self-preservation, into amour-propre (pride), which is unnatural and compels humans to compare themselves to others, forming social hierarchies and creating baseless fear, allowing epicaricacy to flourish.
Rousseau's concept of the social contract differed to that of Hobbes, as under Rousseau, it came about through a natural desire to cooperate:
[The social contract] can be reduced to the following terms. Each of us puts his person and and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and in a body we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole
(Rousseau, Oeuvres complètes)
By uniting through the social contract, claims Rousseau, and abandoning their claim of natural rights, individuals can both maintain self-preservation and remain free – by submitting themselves to the general will of the populace as a whole, it is guaranteed that no individuals may be subordinated to the wills of others, and also ensures conformity with the law, as they are collectively its author.
Locke also opposed Hobbes' ideas. Locke believed that human nature is characterised by reason and tolerance, and that in a natural state all people were equal and independent, and governed by a certain form of law themselves:
The state of nature has a law to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or posessions.
(Two Treatises of Government, 1689)
He argues that the state of nature was a condition of perfect freedom, in which humanity does whatever is within their desire and ability to achieve, where each individual would have the liberty to live in a manner of their own choosing. Locke believed that the state of nature would be peaceful, as it would be irrational for humans to risk their lives in a state of constant war.
For Locke, therefore, the state of nature is not the same as the state of war, however it can degenerate into this. Within the state of nature, Locke argues, individuals recognize the Law of Nature and thus do not harm one another, but war can arise due to disputes between individuals where property is stolen, or if one individual attempts to dominate another and make him his slave. Without government, there is no civil power to whom individuals can appeal to prevent such disputes, and as the Law of Nature allows them to defend their own lives, people may then kill those who attack them – and without any form of civil authority, once a state of war arises it may continue indefinitely. As all individuals are subject to this possibility, some form of government must be established.
Property is the essence of Locke's argument – he claims that an individual may only own what he can take from the land and use himself (thus leaving enough for every other individual), and it is out of a desire to protect this property, including their own bodies, which causes people to abandon the state of nature.
Both Hobbes and Rousseau's arguments are flawed, however: both rely upon an oversimplified account of human nature in order to justify the existence of a social contract. Each assumes a fundamental equality of self – that individuals share the same goals and ideals, regardless of situation. Rousseau's suggestion seems fanciful and romanticised; his concept of the unfettered human as more legitimately noble and worthy than the contemporary product of civilised training can perhaps be viewed as a sympathetic attempt to increase the value of indigenous lifestyles and reject imperial excesses – establishing non-western humans as morally superior, in order to counter their perceived political and economic inferiorities.
Hobbes' idea seems to far to the other extreme. His arguments appear to be in reaction to the English Civil War – a concern over the right of the subject to overthrow and execute the monarch is clearly evident in his work, and much of Leviathan is occupied with demonstrating the necessity of centralised sovereign power to avoid the evils of animosity and civil war. Given this, it is possible that Hobbes deliberately portrayed uncivilised humanity in a severe light, partly to serve as a warning, and also due to what he witnessed of human nature during the war years.