The Social Contract - Thomas Hobbes & John Locke
Summary
TLDRIn this episode of Philosophy Vibe, the spotlight is on political philosophy, specifically the social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Hobbes envisions a state of nature as chaotic and brutal, necessitating a social contract that grants absolute power to a sovereign for order and safety. Conversely, Locke's perspective is more optimistic, advocating for a government with limited powers to protect natural rights like life, liberty, and property. Locke supports the right to overthrow a government that fails to uphold its part of the contract, laying the groundwork for liberal democracies and sparking debates on the nature of consent and the stability of government.
Takeaways
- 📜 The video discusses the concept of the social contract in political philosophy, focusing on the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
- 👤 Thomas Hobbes viewed the 'state of nature' as a time of chaos, violence, and insecurity, where life was 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short'.
- 🤔 Hobbes believed that people rationally choose to leave the state of nature by entering a social contract, giving up some freedom for the sake of peace and stability.
- 👑 According to Hobbes, the social contract establishes a sovereign with unlimited power to enforce laws and maintain order, preventing a return to the brutal state of nature.
- 🚫 Hobbes rejected the idea of limiting the sovereign's power, arguing that absolute authority is necessary to avoid chaos and protect society.
- 🌱 John Locke, on the other hand, saw the state of nature as a place of freedom but also bound by natural law and moral principles, with inherent natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
- 🏛 Locke's social contract theory posits that government's role is to protect these natural rights, with power granted by the people and limited in scope.
- 🔄 Locke believed that if a government fails to protect natural rights or becomes tyrannical, the people have the right to overthrow it and establish a new one.
- 💡 Locke's ideas laid the groundwork for liberalism, emphasizing the importance of individual freedoms and the consent of the governed.
- 🤝 The main difference between Hobbes and Locke is the extent of power given to the government, with Hobbes advocating for absolute sovereignty and Locke for limited government.
- ❓ The video raises questions about the source of natural law and rights, the stability of governments subject to popular overthrow, and the concept of consent in the social contract.
Q & A
What is the main focus of the video on 'Philosophy Vibe'?
-The main focus of the video is on political philosophy, specifically exploring the ideas around the social contract and the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
What is the state of nature according to Thomas Hobbes?
-According to Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature is a time before society, civilization, and government where there are no laws and no rulers, leading to a life of chaos, violence, and constant fear of death.
How does Hobbes describe the life in the state of nature?
-Hobbes describes life in the state of nature as 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,' emphasizing the lack of safety, security, and civilized life.
What is the social contract according to Hobbes?
-Hobbes' social contract theory suggests that people collectively agree to give up their complete freedom and grant unlimited power to a sovereign to enforce laws and maintain peace and stability in society.
What are the criticisms of Hobbes' idea of an all-powerful sovereign?
-Critics argue that absolute power can corrupt and lead to tyranny, causing an unhappy and oppressed population, which may resemble the very state of nature Hobbes sought to avoid.
How does John Locke's view of the state of nature differ from Hobbes'?
-Locke views the state of nature as a state of complete freedom but not without morality. He believes humans are bound by natural law and possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
What are the natural rights according to John Locke?
-Locke identifies the natural rights as the rights to life, liberty, and property, which all humans possess and must not be violated.
What is the role of government in Locke's social contract theory?
-In Locke's theory, the role of government is to protect the natural rights of its citizens and act as an impartial judge to ensure these rights are not violated.
How does Locke's theory differ from Hobbes' in terms of the power of the government?
-Locke advocates for limited government power, with the government's role being to protect natural rights, whereas Hobbes supports an all-powerful sovereign with unlimited authority.
What does Locke believe should happen if the government fails to fulfill its part of the social contract?
-Locke believes that if the government fails to protect natural rights, the people have the right and the responsibility to overthrow the government and replace the rulers.
What are some potential issues with Locke's idea of overthrowing the government when it fails to meet the people's expectations?
-Potential issues include creating an unstable environment with constant changes in leadership, which could hinder progress and lead to a lack of continuity in governance.
How does the concept of consent play a role in the social contract theory?
-Consent is crucial as it represents the agreement between the people and the government. People give their consent for the government to have power to protect their rights, and they can also withdraw this consent if the government fails to uphold its end of the agreement.
What is the criticism regarding the concept of consent in the social contract theory?
-The criticism is that individuals may not have explicitly consented to the social contract, as they are born into a society with pre-existing rules and may not have had a choice in the matter.
Outlines
📜 Thomas Hobbes' Social Contract Theory
This paragraph introduces the concept of the social contract in political philosophy, focusing on Thomas Hobbes' perspective. Hobbes, a 17th-century philosopher, believed in a state of nature characterized by chaos and violence due to the absence of laws and rulers. He argued that rational humans would opt to leave this state by forming a social contract, granting absolute power to a sovereign to ensure peace and stability. Hobbes' view was shaped by his experiences during the English Civil War, and his book 'Leviathan' details his thoughts on the necessity of a strong ruler to prevent society from descending into a brutish and short existence.
🔄 Critique and Comparison of Hobbes and Locke's Theories
The second paragraph presents a critique of Hobbes' social contract theory and introduces John Locke's alternative view. While Hobbes' theory may offer a way out of the state of nature, it raises concerns about the concentration of power in an absolute ruler, which could lead to tyranny. Locke's theory, presented in his 'Two Treatises of Government', posits that people in the state of nature are free but bound by natural law, with inherent rights to life, liberty, and property. Locke believed in a social contract that grants limited government power to protect these rights, with the people retaining the right to overthrow the government if it fails to uphold its part of the contract. This paragraph highlights the debate between unlimited sovereign power versus limited government authority in ensuring societal order and individual rights.
🤔 Challenges and Implications of the Social Contract
The final paragraph delves into the challenges and implications of the social contract theory, particularly Locke's version. It questions the source of natural laws and rights, the stability of a system that allows for the overthrow of government, and the concept of consent in a social contract where individuals did not explicitly agree to its terms. The paragraph also raises the issue of opting out of the social contract and the practicality of such an action. It concludes by inviting viewers to share their thoughts on Hobbes and Locke's theories and promoting the channel's political philosophy ebook for further study.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Social Contract
💡Political Philosophy
💡Thomas Hobbes
💡State of Nature
💡Natural Rights
💡Sovereign
💡Liberalism
💡Consent of the Governed
💡Overthrow
💡Natural Law
💡Absolute Power
Highlights
The social contract theory attempts to explain the relationship between the population and the state or ruling government.
Thomas Hobbes' theory on the social contract is discussed, including his views on the state of nature and the necessity of a strong sovereign to avoid chaos.
Hobbes' perspective on the state of nature as a time of complete freedom but also chaos and violence is highlighted.
Hobbes believed that rational humans would create a social contract to escape the state of nature and establish order through a sovereign with unlimited power.
John Locke's ideas on the social contract are contrasted with Hobbes', emphasizing natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
Locke's view of the state of nature as a place of freedom but still bound by natural law and morality is presented.
The social contract, according to Locke, involves granting limited powers to a government to protect natural rights and maintain an impartial judiciary.
Locke's belief that the government's role is to protect natural rights and the people's right to overthrow an ineffective government is discussed.
The development of liberalism from Locke's political philosophy, advocating for individual freedoms and limited government intervention, is noted.
Criticisms of the social contract theory, including the source of natural laws and rights and the potential instability of governments that can be easily overthrown, are presented.
The question of individual consent to the social contract and the possibility of opting out of societal rules is raised.
The idea that the social contract is a mutual agreement between the people and the government, with the possibility of change if the government fails, is highlighted.
The potential for a tyrannical ruler with unlimited power under Hobbes' social contract theory, despite its intention to prevent the state of nature, is discussed.
Locke's emphasis on the importance of the government's role in preserving natural rights and the consent of the governed is reiterated.
The video concludes with an invitation for viewers to share their thoughts on Hobbes and Locke's social contract theories in the comments.
A mention of a future video dedicated to Jean-Jacques Rousseau's social contract theory, indicating a continuation of the discussion.
An offer for viewers to access the script of the video and support the channel through an eBook available on Amazon, with a link provided in the description.
Transcripts
[Music]
hello
and welcome to philosophy vibe the
channel where we discuss and debate
different philosophical ideas
today we're going to be focusing on
political philosophy and looking at the
ideas around the social
contract great so in short
the social contract tries to explain the
population's relationship with the state
or the ruling government in this video
we are first going to look at thomas
hobbs theory on the social contract
then we will focus on john locke's ideas
and how this
in fact helped shape the liberalism
approach to political philosophy
that would later dominate the western
world fantastic
let's begin very well now thomas hobbs
was a 17th century philosopher
who contributed greatly to the subject
of political philosophy
during the later years of his life he
lived through the english
civil war living among such brutality
watching the changing of the country
parliamentarians fighting royalists
and the ensuing chaos that would follow
it really made hobbs question the nature
of the state
what is government and how did it come
to be
right in his book leviathan hobbes looks
at the earliest years of human
development
before society before civilization and
of course before government
hobbes refers to this as the state of
nature
hobbes was very critical and pessimistic
about the state of nature
this state was a time with no laws and
no rulers
in a way complete freedom for every
human
however living in such a state hobbes
argued was complete
chaos and something we would definitely
want to avoid
as it would offer no long-term benefits
for humankind
without rulers and laws humans were free
to be as savage and as brutal as
possible
it would be a life of brute violence
there would be
no safety no security or trust and as
such
partnerships growth and civilizations
would not develop
there would be no industry no commerce
no culture
no arts no knowledge and no sociable or
civilized life
each day would just be a battle to
survive and as hobbes claims
continual fear and danger of violent
death
and the life of man solitary poor
nasty brutish and short wow a very
terrifying thought
right so as you can see most rational
humans would not want to live in this
type of world
hobbs believed humans were
self-interested so
they would want what was best for
themselves and also
humans were rational beings so they
would strive to create an environment
that took them out of this state of
nature
this is where rulers and governments
would need to be created
hobbes did not believe in the divine
right of kings
whereby god has created certain mental
rule
in fact hobbes believed that it was the
human beings as a collective
who decides the rulers this collective
is the social contract humans get
together
with a mutual interest to create a
better life
than the state of nature i see first
people will give up their complete
freedom they will give up their complete
freedom in order to live together in
peace and stability
they will create rules and common laws
that all must follow
secondly they will hand over complete
power to a person
or a group of people to enforce these
laws
this is the sovereign the authority that
makes sure
the social contract is followed the role
of the sovereign is to ensure there is
peace and stability in the society
and they have unlimited power to make
sure this remains
the rulers then can do whatever they
want
whatever they need to do in order to
maintain the peace and safety for
the population this is the social
contract
we collectively agree to follow laws and
rules
and we give unlimited power to the
sovereign to make sure
we all follow them we can never limit
the power of the sovereign
and we can never try to fight against
them so long as they are fulfilling
their part of the social contract
and maintaining a safe environment free
from chaos
and from the state of nature remember
all that stands between
humans and that chaotic brutal life is
the sovereign
and so they must always remain
all-powerful
all the time okay so automatically i
feel uncomfortable with the idea of
having a ruler with
unlimited power we know the phrase
absolute power corrupts absolutely
and the idea of having let's say an evil
or unhinged person with absolute power
is frightening
this can very well lead to an unhappy
even depressed population
having to put up with a crazy tyrant of
course
hobbs social contract is not perfect but
no political system ever is
there will be inconveniences or at least
there will be times of inconvenience
depending on who the sovereign is
however hobbes would argue that this
is a small price to pay for completely
escaping the brutal state of nature
this was necessary in order to avoid
living
in horrible awful conditions where every
day is a violent struggle
and life would never improve i am not
convinced
i would argue that the wrong sovereign
with unlimited power
can in fact create a state that
resembles the state of nature hobbs has
described
this is definitely not outside the realm
of possibility
we can easily imagine a brutal violent
dictator
that has unlimited power and starts
inflicting terror on the population
or parts of the population this has
happened so many times
you have evil rulers who have destroyed
their societies
through thoughtless acts of war you have
had stupid rulers who have destroyed
economies and commerce
i can't see how giving one person or a
small group of people
unlimited power can be sustainable
because we are talking about a long-term
system
sure there may be times where there are
inept or bad rulers
but there will be times where there are
great heroic and intelligent rulers
so the system is there all the time it
allows for the good the mediocre and at
times the bad
but the state of nature is constant the
brutish
environment is everlasting and we cannot
ever get out of that state
we cannot improve unless we create the
social contract
well i think hobbes may have been a bit
hyperbolic when explaining the state of
nature
it can be argued that humans are not
necessarily that brutish and violent in
nature
hobbes has basically said either we are
all completely free in chaos and we will
be fighting and killing each other
forever
or we give complete and unlimited power
to one person
to stop us killing each other but also
that one person can control every aspect
of our existence
surely there is something else this
can't be the only two states of
existence for human beings
very interesting you should say that so
now i want to move on to john locke's
ideas on the social contract
okay now in two treaties on government
locke explains that he too sees humans
starting at the state of nature
but he did not have the very dark morbid
view that hobbes had
lok agreed that the state of nature was
complete freedom for human beings
this liberty to act and live how one
pleases however
this did not mean we could do anything
we wanted
and every act was permissible we must
remember
although there was no rulers this did
not mean there was no morality
locke believed humans were still bound
by natural law
and using our rational faculties we can
see that we have natural rights
locke described these natural rights as
life
liberty and property so basically we
cannot kill or harm each other
we cannot enslave or force each other to
act
and we cannot steal from each other
these were the three
natural rights all humans had we were
all born and created equally
with these three rights i see
of course in the state of nature there
is no authority to protect these natural
rights
or to judge if any of the rights are
being violated
and so here is where the population
makes a social contract
we grant limited powers to a government
to make sure that these three natural
rights are being preserved
the role of the government is to judge
whether any of these rights have been
violated for an individual
and to punish anyone who violates
another's natural rights
now we may give up some freedoms in
order to preserve our natural rights
we do give power to a government in
order to help protect our natural rights
and act as an impartial judge equal and
fair to everyone
this would all be in the pursuit of
liberty and justice for all
this is done only with the consent of
the people
we make this contract with the
government we the people
give the consent for them to have the
power to punish us
providing our natural rights are being
safeguarded
yes understand so we can see the main
difference between
loch and hobbes is that locke did not
advocate for unlimited power of the
sovereign
locke did not believe the government
should have absolute control and rule
over the people
the government was only there to protect
our natural rights and nothing more
should the people ever feel like the
government is not fulfilling their part
of the contract
locke believed it should be permissible
and in fact necessary
that the people overthrow the government
and expel the existing rulers
should the leaders become inept or
thoughtless in their laws
the people must repel the authority this
was
after all a contract an agreement that
both entities
needed to make good upon if the current
rulers could not fulfill their promise
the people should be able to get them
out of office and bring in new rulers
interesting this is where liberalism as
a political philosophy
started to develop the idea that human
beings should be free to live
however they like providing they do not
violate
anyone's natural rights human beings
should be free to live how they want
love who they want worship what they
want without any interference from the
government we see
locke's theory prominent in liberal
democracies too
where the people can contribute and give
their consent to a ruling party and
president
and we all have the power to expel these
rulers if we believe they are not doing
a good job a great
political theory and one that seems very
desirable
but of course there are still some
issues i would like to raise
go ahead from a meta ethical perspective
where exactly does locke's natural laws
and natural rights come from
is this from a rational intuition or
from god there are interpretations but
generally natural law is seen as being
god's law
that we discover by our rational mind
right
well i don't want to hold debate over
natural law we have already done that
but there are issues with this theory so
to just start from the point that life
liberty and property our natural rights
is not self-evident fair enough secondly
the idea of overthrowing the government
when the people feel they are not doing
a good job can actually be quite
dangerous
how so whilst i don't like the idea of
an absolute ruler that we must obey no
matter what
equally being able to dispose of any
government at the drop of a hat seems
unreliable
especially if the population is perhaps
spoilt
greedy unrealistic or ignorant at any
moment if the people feel they are not
happy with the government they can
overthrow them this will create a very
unstable environment
nothing would get done as leadership
would constantly change
progress would be stagnant i don't think
this is such a problem
people are after all self-interested and
rational
they wouldn't create such a tough
environment for their leaders
at their own expense the right to expel
rulers is only meant to safeguard
against
tyranny yes i do understand but still a
constant change in leadership is
possible and
unstable i doubt this is a very big
threat
finally and this is a criticism of the
social contract overall
how much can any one individual say they
have given consent or signed up to an
agreement with their government or
rulers
i don't think i can say this i was born
into this society with all the rules in
place and forced upon me
i do not feel i made a deal with any
ruler and should i decide that i do not
want to participate in the agreement
should i reject my consent give up my
protections in favor of complete freedom
is this an option can i do this can i
opt out
sign a document saying i am not
protected by the police or military but
i do not have to follow the rules well
no okay so how can this be a contract if
i have not consented
i suppose you can leave that particular
society
you can go into exile or you can choose
another society to live in
one where you do consent to live in and
consent to the rules in place
perhaps you can even go into the
rainforest and live completely free
as part of the state of nature easier
said than done
if you would like the script to this
video either to help you study or to
support the channel then please take a
look at our political philosophy ebook
available on amazon this script is
featured in there along with a number of
others
the link will be in the description but
that's all the time we have for now
thank you for watching we hope you
enjoyed the vibe i know some of you may
be questioning why russo was not
mentioned in this debate
we've decided we will do a specific
video on russo social contract
but for now let us know your thoughts on
hobbes and lox's social contract theory
in the comments below if you enjoyed the
video please like and share
and for more debates please subscribe to
our channel thanks again
and we'll see you in the next video
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)