Thomas Hobbes: The Concept Of The Social Contract

The origin of the ideas of the Social Contract can be found in the writings of Plato. However, Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher expanded this concept in his most successful work, Leviathan. The Social Contract Theory implies that individuals have voluntarily consented to give up their freedom, in order to obtain benefits of the political order. The need of a Social Contract arises because in the absence of a government, that is, the State of Nature, individuals make seek to pursue their own interests at the expense of the interest of another individual . The concept of the Social Contract comprises a two-sided agreement between the people on one hand and the ruler on the other. The people agree to obey the ruler for their welfare and

Therefore, I do not intend to exclude consent as a justification of the government. However, the concept of mutual consent as a basis of existence of the government is hypothetical. Existence of some other form of government must be admitted . Also, the role of governments in maintaining stability and order cannot be undermined. This is so because under the State of Nature, citizens live under a constant threat of their property and liberty being seized by others. An individual in a state of nature could commit a murder without the fear of punishment. Every man becomes capable of being a murderer and satisfying his or her personal interest by causing injury to others. The existence of a government is thus, an extremely essential component for a stable social and political life. In fact, the presence of any form of government is better than the state of nature. Governments protect people against harm and safeguard personal property. For example, laws against child labor exists to promote youth education and prevent child exploitation. In the absence of any laws or a government, child would be abused and overworked. Governments exists to protect the citizens from harm and exploitation. Therefore, existence of government irrespective of whether it is formed on mutual consent or not, is extremely

Every individual would live under the constant fear of losing his life to another. The state of nature would thus be, ‘’the worst possible situation’’ in which men can find themselves. The only way individuals could escape from the brutal state of nature is by creating a civil society . This would result in the creation of a contract, wherein individuals consent to ‘’give up’’ his or her share of rights to an absolute authority (sovereign). The sovereign in return promises to protect and secure the rights of individuals. For Hobbes, an absolute monarch or a small group of individuals, represents supreme authority . However, monarchies are often viewed to be hereditary, that is, the crown is passed from one member of the family to another. Under such circumstances, it is not the consent of individuals that justifies the rule of the sovereign. Also, it cannot be concluded that if individuals consent one member of the family to be a monarch, they automatically consent to the rule of other members of the family as well. In fact, people accept the rule of the sovereign out of fear, and not because they are satisfied. Therefore, when people are ruled by an absolute monarch, there exists little scope for consent to be the justification of political