The Social Contract - Thomas Hobbes & John Locke

Summary

In 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

00:00

📜 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.

05:02

🔄 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.

10:05

🤔 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.

Keywords

💡Social Contract

The social contract is a philosophical concept that describes the implicit or explicit agreement between individuals and the state or government. It is central to the video's theme, as it explores how individuals consent to give up certain freedoms in exchange for protection and order. The video discusses how Thomas Hobbes and John Locke viewed the social contract differently, with Hobbes advocating for a strong, all-powerful sovereign to maintain peace, while Locke emphasized limited government power to protect natural rights.

💡Political Philosophy

Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, and the distribution of power. It is the overarching theme of the video, as it delves into the theories of the social contract by Hobbes and Locke. The video uses political philosophy to debate the nature of governance and the rights of individuals within society.

💡Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes was a 17th-century philosopher known for his contributions to political philosophy, particularly his book 'Leviathan.' In the video, Hobbes' theory of the social contract is discussed, which posits a state of nature characterized by chaos and violence. Hobbes believed that to escape this state, individuals must agree to submit to a sovereign with absolute power to ensure peace and order.

💡State of Nature

The state of nature refers to a hypothetical condition of human existence before the advent of government and societal institutions. In the video, it is used to contrast the views of Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes described it as a state of perpetual conflict, while Locke saw it as a place where natural rights existed but were not protected by any authority.

💡Natural Rights

Natural rights are rights that are inherent by virtue of human nature and not contingent upon the laws, beliefs, or attitudes of a particular society or culture. In the video, John Locke's concept of natural rights, which include life, liberty, and property, is highlighted. These rights are seen as fundamental and are what individuals seek to protect through the social contract.

💡Sovereign

A sovereign, in the context of the social contract, is the ruler or governing body to whom individuals grant authority in exchange for protection and order. The video explains that Hobbes believed in an absolute sovereign with unlimited power, whereas Locke argued for a more limited sovereign whose role is to protect natural rights.

💡Liberalism

Liberalism is a political philosophy that emphasizes individual rights, equality, and the protection of civil liberties. The video connects Locke's ideas to the development of liberalism, suggesting that his advocacy for limited government power and the protection of natural rights influenced the liberal approach to political philosophy in the Western world.

💡Consent of the Governed

Consent of the governed is the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and lawful when derived from the people or society over which that political power is exercised. The video discusses how Locke believed that the social contract is based on the consent of the people, and they have the right to overthrow a government that does not fulfill its part of the contract.

💡Overthrow

In the context of the video, overthrow refers to the act of removing a government or ruler from power, typically through force or by the collective will of the people. Locke's theory allows for the overthrow of a government if it fails to protect natural rights, which is a key point of difference from Hobbes' view of an absolute sovereign.

💡Natural Law

Natural law is a philosophy that asserts that certain rights or principles are inherent by virtue of human nature and can be understood universally through human reason. In the video, Locke's concept of natural law is discussed as the foundation for natural rights, which guide the formation of the social contract.

💡Absolute Power

Absolute power refers to the complete and unrestricted authority of a ruler or government. The video contrasts Hobbes' support for an absolute sovereign with unlimited power to maintain order with Locke's belief in limited government authority focused on protecting natural rights.

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