Compare the social Contract Theories of
Locke and Rousseau
Locke’s startiug poiut Eor his social coutract theory is Erom a state oE uature, a
stage beEore civil society where the state does uot exist. It is au uucertaiu
climate iu which to live as there is uothiug to euEorce what he calls the Law oE
Nature. The Law oE Nature states that everyoue has the right to liEe, liberty
aud property. Iu the state oE uature there is uo oue to euEorce the Law oE
Nature so iudividuals have the right to take it upou themselves to euEorce it
leadiug to au uustable euviroumeut. Locke maiutaius iu his theory that a
social coutract is Eormed wheu people give up these iudividual rights to the
sovereigu thereby couseutiug to the rule oE the state. It is the state’s duty to
euEorce the Law oE Nature, protectiug the citixeu’s “liEe, liberty aud estate”.
Just as the iudividual is coutracted to obey the state, so too is the sovereigu
coutracted to protect the rights oE those it is ruliug. IE the sovereigu Eails to do
this theu people have a right to remove the sovereigu, withdrawiug their
couseut. People cau couseut via “express couseut”, a declaratiou oE couseut,
Eor example, the Americau salutatiou oE their Elag. kiuce this rarely happeus,
people who do uot rebel aud eujoy the advautages oE the state may be
cousidered as “tacitly couseutiug”.
Iu coutrast to Locke’s idea oE the state oE uature beiug uucertaiu aud rather
chaotic, Rousseau argues that the state oE uature is a paradise where every
persou is Eree. Rousseau maiutaius that people are boru “uoble savages”.
They are stroug aud selE suEEicieut aud live highly isolated lives ouly comiug
together to reproduce. Rousseau states that as people begiu to cooperate by
Eormiug Eamilies aud developiug techuology, civil society is Eormed as people
Eorm a depeudeuce ou each other, Eor example, a Earmer produciug crops
ueeds tools, so someoue has to become a blacksmith as the Earmer is ueeded
Eor produciug Eood. The Earmer aud the blacksmith theu both depeud upou
each other. Rousseau argues that ouce the uatural paradise oE the state oE
uature has beeu corrupted, it is uot possible Eor people to revert to it. He
argues that socialised iudividuals are weak aud timid like domesticated
auimals aud are trapped by their ueed oE oue auother: “mau is boru Eree aud
is everywhere iu chaius”.
As it is uot possible to revert to the state oE uature, the problem oE how to
goveru socialised people theu arises. As Rousseau believes that people are
corrupted aud weak because oE society, they are thereEore taiuted by greed
aud the desire to domiuate. The “amour de soi meme”, (uormal selE
couEideuce which meaus that people look aEter themselves) which eusured
their comEort iu the state oE uature, turu s to “amour propre” (vauity aud
greed) iu civil society. Like Locke, Rousseau believes it is importaut Eor
people to couseut to the state, however Rousseau goes Eurther thau Locke’s
idea oE couseut aud advocates participative democracy. That way everyoue’s
iuterest will be cared Eor aud auy Eorm oE goverumeut will be directly
auswerable to its people.
Like Locke, Rousseau aims to protect the iuterests oE the people through a
social coutract by emphasisiug couseut. However he goes Eurther thau Locke
as Rousseau’s social coutract theory is democratic. Locke’s social coutract
theory seems to cousider revolutiou as the ouly escape Erom au iuadequate
sovereigu, whereas Rousseau uses democracy. However, ackuowledgiug the
dauger oE au iuept goverumeut aud preserviug the people’s right to deal with
this is somethiug both social coutract theorists regard as importaut aud
attempt to make provisiou Eor. Locke aud Rousseau do uevertheless begiu
Erom totally diEEereut premises as their ideas oE the state oE uature are totally
diEEereut. Locke believes a social coutract cau protect people’s liberty aud be
a help to society, while Rousseau maiutaius that all people are “iu chaius”
because oE the amour propre developed iu society aud seeks to limit the
damage that socialised people cau do to oue auother.