Duration

1588-1679 hobbes, 1632 to 1704 locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau lived from 1712 to 1778

Situation
Hobbes Hobbes experienced the English Civil War (1642-1651), which was a significant event
in English history. This conflict arose due to tensions between the monarchy, led by King
Charles I, and Parliament, which sought to limit the king's power. The war resulted in the
execution of Charles I in 1649 and the establishment of the Commonwealth, led by Oliver
Cromwell.
Hobbes witnessed the chaotic and divisive nature of the civil war, which influenced his political
philosophy.
LOCKE
The Glorious Revolution marked a shift towards constitutional monarchy and the establishment
of parliamentary sovereignty, Religious and Political, Tensions, Constitutional Developments,
Scientific and Intellectual Advancements
ROSSEAU
Socioeconomic Inequality: France in the 18th century was marked by significant socioeconomic
inequality. The majority of the population, particularly the common people and peasants, faced
poverty, while the nobility and clergy enjoyed privileges and wealth. This divide contributed to
social unrest and discontent.
Pre-Revolutionary Tensions: France experienced growing tensions and discontent among various
sectors of society, particularly the bourgeoisie and the emerging middle class. These tensions
were fueled by grievances over political representation, economic disparities, and the desire for
greater individual liberties.
American revolution

Work(books)
Hobbes Element of law, magnum opus leviathan
Locke "Two Treatises of Government" (1689): This work is considered one of Locke's most
important contributions to political philosophy. In the first treatise, he refutes the idea of the
divine right of kings and defends the natural rights of individuals. The second treatise delves into
the concept of the social contract, arguing that legitimate government is based on the consent of
the governed and exists to protect natural rights.
"A Letter Concerning Toleration" (1689): In this letter, Locke advocates for religious tolerance
and freedom of conscience. He argues that the state should not interfere in matters of religious
belief and that individuals should be free to worship according to their own conscience. This
work had a significant influence on later discussions on religious liberty.
Rosseau: Discourse on the Sciences and Arts" (1750):
Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men

Method
1. Hobbes: Materialist Approach: Hobbes approached philosophy from a materialist
perspective, focusing on the physical aspects of human existence and the natural world.
He believed that all phenomena, including human behavior and social institutions, are
ultimately explainable in terms of matter and motion.
2. Deductive Reasoning: Hobbes employed deductive reasoning in his philosophical
arguments. He sought to establish foundational principles from which he could logically
deduce further conclusions. He believed in starting with self-evident axioms and using
logical reasoning to build a systematic understanding of politics and society.
Locke
Empiricism: Locke's approach was grounded in empiricism, which emphasizes the importance of
sensory experience and observation in acquiring knowledge. He believed that all ideas originate
from sensory perception and reflection on those perceptions.
Tabula Rasa: Locke famously proposed the concept of the "tabula rasa," or blank slate. He
asserted that individuals are born without innate ideas or knowledge and that the mind is a blank
slate upon which experiences and sensations are imprinted, shaping one's understanding of the
world.
Sensation and Reflection: Locke distinguished between two sources of ideas: sensation and
reflection. Sensation refers to the direct perception of external objects through the senses, while
reflection involves the mind's contemplation of its own internal operations, such as thinking,
reasoning, and remembering.

Rooseau:
Naturalism: Rousseau's approach was rooted in naturalism, emphasizing the importance of
studying human beings in their natural state. He believed that society and civilization had
corrupted human nature, and that by studying the natural state, one could gain insights into the
fundamental principles of human existence.
General Will: Rousseau introduced the concept of the "general will" as a central element of his
political philosophy. He argued that the general will represents the collective desires and
interests of the entire community. It is distinct from individual wills and should guide the
decision-making process in a just and democratic society.
Emphasis on Emotion and Intuition: Rousseau believed that reason alone was insufficient for
understanding human behavior and social dynamics. He placed emphasis on emotions and
intuition as important aspects of human nature and sources of knowledge. He argued for the
importance of passionate engagement and authentic expression in individual and collective life.
Critique of Inequality and Social Contracts: Rousseau critiqued the existence of inequality in
society and challenged the traditional understanding of social contracts. He argued that true
freedom and equality could only be achieved through a social contract that respects individual
liberty and is based on the general will of the people.
Education and Moral Development: Rousseau placed significant importance on education and
the moral development of individuals. He believed that proper education should focus on
cultivating virtue, empathy, and a sense of social responsibility. He advocated for an educational
system that nurtures individuals to become active and engaged citizens.
Rousseau's method also involved the use of thought experiments and hypothetical scenarios to
explore different aspects of human nature and social organization. He often presented his ideas
through fictional narratives and dialogues to illustrate his philosophical concepts.

Human nature
Hobbes: According to Hobbes, human nature is fundamentally driven by self-interest and a
desire for self-preservation. Hobbes believed that humans, in their natural state, are inherently
selfish and inclined towards pursuing their own individual needs and desires. He argued that this
self-interest stems from a fundamental instinct for self-preservation, as individuals strive to
ensure their own survival and well-being.

Locke: According to Locke, human nature is characterized by the belief that individuals are
born as a "tabula rasa," or a blank slate. Unlike Hobbes, Locke rejected the notion that humans
are inherently selfish or driven solely by self-interest. Instead, Locke emphasized the potential
for reason, morality, and social cooperation within human nature.

Rosseau: Innate Goodness: Rousseau believed that humans are born inherently good,
compassionate, and empathetic. He argued that it is society and its institutions that corrupt
individuals and lead to negative behaviors and inequalities.

State of nature:
Hobbes: According to Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature is a hypothetical and pre-social
condition in which individuals exist without any form of government or authority. Hobbes
described the state of nature as a state of constant fear, conflict, and competition, wherein life is
"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

In Hobbes' view, human nature is driven by self-preservation and the pursuit of self-interest. He
argued that in the absence of a governing authority, humans would naturally engage in a constant
struggle for power and resources. The state of nature is characterized by a state of perpetual war,
as individuals seek to secure their own survival and protect their interests against others.
Hobbes believed that in the state of nature, humans are equal in their physical and mental
capacities, which further fuels the competition and conflict. He argued that humans have a
fundamental right to self-preservation and are willing to use any means necessary to secure their
own safety.
To escape the state of nature and its inherent dangers, Hobbes proposed the social contract
theory. He argued that individuals voluntarily surrender their rights and freedoms to a sovereign
authority in exchange for protection and stability. This sovereign authority, whether a monarchy
or a republic, creates and enforces laws to maintain order and prevent the chaos of the state of
nature.
LOCKE: According to John Locke, the state of nature refers to a hypothetical condition in
which individuals exist before the establishment of a civil society and government. Locke's
perspective on the state of nature can be summarized as follows:
Unlike Hobbes, Locke had a more optimistic view of human nature and believed that individuals
are generally rational and capable of living harmoniously in a state of nature. However, Locke
acknowledged that conflicts may arise due to differing interpretations of the law of nature or
violations of natural rights.
Natural Rights: Locke believed that in the state of nature, all individuals are born with certain
natural rights, namely life, liberty, and property. These rights are inherent and cannot be taken
away by any external authority.
Equality and Freedom: In the state of nature, Locke argued that individuals are equal and free.
Each person has the right to govern themselves, make decisions, and pursue their own interests,
as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. This freedom is not absolute, as it is
tempered by the laws of nature and moral principles.
Law of Nature: Locke posited that the state of nature is governed by the law of nature, which is
based on reason and promotes the preservation of humanity. This law mandates that individuals
should not harm others in their life, liberty, and property. It also establishes a duty for individuals
to enforce this law and protect their own rights and the rights of others.
Limitations and Disputes: Although the state of nature is a condition of freedom and equality,
Locke acknowledged that it is not without its limitations and potential for conflicts.
Disagreements and disputes may arise, and individuals might struggle to impartially enforce the
law of nature. In such cases, Locke argued that individuals have the right to seek a neutral third-
party arbitrator or judge to resolve disputes.
Transition to Civil Society: Locke believed that individuals enter into a social contract to form a
civil society and establish a government. The purpose of this transition is to better secure and
protect their natural rights. The government's role is to uphold the law of nature, protect
individual rights, and provide a framework for resolving disputes.
ROSSEAU: According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the state of nature refers to the hypothetical
condition in which human beings exist before the establishment of organized societies and
governments. Rousseau's perspective on the state of nature can be summarized as follows:

Natural Innocence: Rousseau believed that in the state of nature, humans are born inherently
good and free. They possess natural innocence and are free from the corrupting influences of
society and civilization. In this state, individuals are driven by their natural instincts and desires
for self-preservation and well-being.
Amorality and Equality: Rousseau argued that in the state of nature, individuals lack moral
concepts and judgments. While they may have a sense of compassion and empathy, there is no
formal sense of morality or moral obligations. Additionally, all individuals are considered equal
in terms of their natural abilities and resources.
Peaceful Coexistence: Contrary to Hobbes' view of the state of nature as a state of constant
conflict, Rousseau believed that in this primitive condition, humans live in a state of peaceful
coexistence. As individuals are self-sufficient and their desires are limited, there is no need for
competition or aggression.
Transition to Civil Society: Rousseau considered the transition from the state of nature to civil
society as a pivotal moment in human history. With the emergence of private property,
inequality, and the division of labor, humans began to experience social and moral corruption.
Rousseau argued that the establishment of civil society and governments was a response to these
changes in order to protect individual freedoms and promote the common good.
Social Contract: Rousseau's concept of the social contract is the voluntary agreement among
individuals to form a society and establish a government. This contract serves to protect
individual rights and freedoms while preserving the collective will of the community. The
legitimacy of the government lies in its ability to represent the general will and act in the best
interests of the community.

Laws of nature
Hobbes: Hobbes did acknowledge that the law of nature, in its pure form, lacks a strong
enforcement mechanism and can be self-destructive. He argued that in the state of nature, where
there is no central authority to enforce the law, individuals may still act in their own self-interest,
leading to conflicts and a perpetual state of war.

Hobbes believed that the law of nature, while a rational principle, is not sufficient on its own to
ensure peace and order in society. He argued that individuals need a sovereign authority with the
power to enforce the law and maintain social order. According to Hobbes, this sovereign
authority, whether a monarch or a government, is necessary to establish a social contract
whereby individuals give up certain rights and liberties in exchange for protection and security.
LOCKE: ohn Locke also discussed the concept of the law of nature in his political philosophy.
According to Locke, the law of nature is based on reason and is a fundamental principle that
governs human behavior. He believed that individuals have certain natural rights, such as life,
liberty, and property, which are derived from the law of nature.Locke argued that the primary
purpose of the law of nature is to protect these natural rights and promote the well-being of
individuals. He believed that all individuals are equal and have the right to enjoy their natural
rights without interference from others.
ROOSEAU: Rousseau considered the law of nature to be a moral and ethical principle that
reflects the natural inclinations of individuals to live in harmony with their own nature and the
natural world. He believed that the law of nature is based on compassion, empathy, and a sense
of justice.
In Rousseau's view, the law of nature is not a specific set of rules or rights but rather a general
principle that encourages individuals to act in accordance with their natural inclinations and the
common good. He believed that true freedom and fulfillment can only be achieved by returning
to a state of nature and living in small, self-governing communities where individuals can
express their natural virtues.

Natural rights
Hobbes: In Hobbes' view, the natural rights of individuals are not absolute or inherent, but rather
they are subject to the authority and laws of the government. He believed that individuals should
submit to the authority of the sovereign and abide by the laws established by the state in order to
maintain social order and prevent the destructive consequences of unrestrained self-interest.
Locke: Locke believed that every individual possesses certain natural rights that are inherent and
inalienable. These rights include the rights to life, liberty, and property.
According to Locke, individuals are born with these natural rights, which are derived from their
status as rational beings and their ability to reason. These rights are not granted by any
government or authority but are inherent to human nature itself. Locke argued that individuals
have the right to preserve their own lives, pursue their own interests, and acquire and possess
property.
Locke believed that the purpose of government is to protect these natural rights.
Rosseau
Rousseau believed that in the state of nature, individuals are inherently free and equal,
possessing natural rights that are based on their existence as human beings.

Rousseau argued that natural rights, such as the right to life and liberty, are not derived from
reason or individual ownership of property, as Locke proposed. Instead, Rousseau believed that
natural rights stem from the collective will of the community. He emphasized the importance of
the general will, which represents the common interests and welfare of the entire community.
According to Rousseau, individuals must surrender their natural rights to the collective will in
order to form a social contract and establish a just society.

Basis of social contract theory

Hobbes: Thomas Hobbes' social contract theory is based on the idea that individuals voluntarily
enter into a social contract to establish a sovereign authority in order to escape the state of nature
and ensure the peace and security of society. Hobbes believed that in the state of nature, human
beings are naturally self-interested, driven by their own desires and instincts, which leads to a
state of constant conflict and insecurity.
Locke: According to Locke, individuals enter into a social contract voluntarily to establish a
government that will protect and preserve their natural rights. The purpose of government, in
Locke's view, is to secure these rights and promote the common good. Unlike Hobbes, Locke
believed that individuals are capable of reason and cooperation, and can live in a state of relative
peace and prosperity in the absence of a government.
Locke argued that the legitimacy of government is based on the consent of the governed. This
means that individuals give their consent, either explicitly or implicitly, to be governed by a
particular authority. Consent can be given through participation in the political process, such as
voting, or by choosing to reside within a particular jurisdiction.
Rosseau: Jean-Jacques Rousseau's social contract theory is based on the notion of the general
will and the idea of popular sovereignty. Rousseau believed that individuals are born free, but are
bound by the constraints of society. He argued that the social contract is an agreement among
individuals to form a community and establish a government that reflects the general will of the
people.
According to Rousseau, the general will represents the collective desires and interests of the
entire community, and it should guide the decisions and actions of the government.

Definition of social contract theory

Hobbes: Hobbes' social contract theory posits that individuals willingly surrender their rights
and freedoms to a sovereign authority in exchange for security and protection. This agreement
establishes the basis for political authority and serves to mitigate the inherent conflicts and chaos
of the state of nature.
Locke: John Locke's social contract theory, influenced by natural law philosophy, is a belief that
individuals form a social contract to establish a legitimate government that protects their natural
rights to life, liberty, and property. This contract is a voluntary agreement, and if the government
fails to fulfill its obligations, individuals have the right to dissolve it and form a new one.
Rosseau: Jean-Jacques Rousseau's social contract theory, rooted in the concept of the general
will, posits that individuals enter into a social contract to form a community where their natural
freedom is preserved through collective decision-making. This contract establishes a legitimate
government that works for the common good and protects individual rights, while also
emphasizing the importance of individual autonomy and participation in the political process.

Reject or accept divine right theory

Hobbes: Thomas Hobbes rejected the divine right theory of monarchy. In his political
philosophy, Hobbes argued for the establishment of a sovereign ruler or government based on a
social contract, where individuals voluntarily surrender their rights in exchange for security and
protection. According to Hobbes, political authority is derived from the consent of the governed,
not from any divine mandate or right. He believed that the power of the sovereign is derived
from the collective will of the people, rather than from any religious or divine authority.

Locke: John Locke rejected the divine right theory of monarchy. In his political philosophy,
Locke argued that political authority is not derived from divine right but from the consent of the
governed. He believed that individuals have natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and that
government exists to protect these rights. According to Locke, rulers derive their authority from
the consent of the people, and if they fail to fulfill their obligations, the people have the right to
replace them with a new government. Locke's theory emphasizes the importance of individual
rights and popular sovereignty, rather than divine authority.
Rosseau: Jean-Jacques Rousseau did not explicitly reject or accept the divine right theory of
monarchy. However, his political philosophy focused more on the idea of the general will and
the sovereignty of the people rather than divine authority. Rousseau emphasized the importance
of the collective decision-making process and believed that political authority should be based on
the consent of the governed. While he did not directly address the divine right theory, his
emphasis on popular sovereignty suggests that he leaned more towards rejecting the notion of
divine right as the basis for political authority.

Avoid or accept revolution

Hobbes: According to Thomas Hobbes, it is generally advised to avoid revolution. Hobbes
argued that revolution leads to a state of chaos and violence, as it disrupts the established social
order and undermines the authority of the sovereign. He believed that maintaining a strong
central authority is essential for preserving peace and stability in society. Hobbes advocated for
individuals to uphold their part of the social contract and to seek peaceful means of resolving
conflicts, rather than resorting to revolution.\
Locke: According to John Locke, individuals have the right to resist and potentially engage in
revolution under certain circumstances. Locke believed that if a government fails to protect the
natural rights of its citizens, such as life, liberty, and property, and becomes tyrannical or
oppressive, then the people have the right to overthrow that government and establish a new one.
Locke emphasized the importance of the consent of the governed and the idea that political
authority is derived from the people. While revolution should not be taken lightly, Locke
believed it can be a legitimate response to the violation of individual rights and the breakdown of
the social contract.
Rosseau: According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the acceptability of revolution depends on the
situation and the pursuit of the general will. Rousseau believed in the sovereignty of the people
and the importance of the general will as the guiding principle in society. If the government fails
to uphold the general will and consistently acts against the common good, Rousseau argued that
revolution may be necessary to restore the legitimate authority of the people. However, he also
cautioned that revolution should not be undertaken lightly and should only be pursued when all
peaceful avenues have been exhausted. The decision to accept or engage in revolution should be
based on careful consideration of the circumstances and the aim to establish a just and
harmonious society.

Laws bind sovereign or not

Hobbes: According to Hobbes, the sovereign is not bound by the law in the same way as the
citizens. Hobbes argued that the sovereign is above the law and is not subject to the same legal
restrictions as the individuals in society. The sovereign holds absolute power and has the
authority to make and enforce laws. The laws are created by the sovereign to maintain order and
ensure the stability of the state, but the sovereign is not personally bound by these laws.
However, Hobbes did emphasize that the sovereign's authority is derived from the consent of the
governed, and if the sovereign were to act in a way that violates the social contract or fails to
protect the safety and well-being of the people, they risk losing their legitimacy and may face
resistance from the citizens.
Locke: According to Locke, the sovereign is bound by the law just like any other citizen. Locke
believed in the concept of limited government and the rule of law. He argued that the
government's power should be limited and that it should function within the framework of the
law.

Locke believed that the purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of life, liberty, and
property. The government derives its authority from the consent of the governed and is
responsible for upholding the laws that protect these rights. Therefore, the sovereign, as the
representative of the government, is obligated to obey and uphold the law.

If the sovereign were to act in a way that goes against the law or violates the rights of the
citizens, Locke argued that the people have the right to resist and potentially overthrow the
government. This highlights the idea that the government, including the sovereign, is not above
the law and is subject to its constraints.
Rosseau: According to Rousseau, the sovereign is bound by the law and is subject to its
constraints. Rousseau's concept of the general will emphasizes the collective decision-making
process and the pursuit of the common good. The sovereign, representing the general will, is
responsible for enacting laws that are in line with the common interest.
Rousseau believed that the sovereign should act as a servant of the people and govern in
accordance with the general will. The laws established by the sovereign are meant to promote
equality, justice, and the well-being of the society as a whole. Therefore, the sovereign is
expected to abide by the laws they have enacted and to govern in a manner that reflects the
interests and welfare of the people.

If the sovereign were to act contrary to the law or deviate from the general will, Rousseau argued
that their authority would be compromised, and the legitimacy of the government would be
called into question. The people, according to Rousseau, have the right to hold the sovereign
accountable and even to replace them if they no longer represent the common interest or uphold
the law.
Source of laws?
Hobbes: In Hobbes' view, the sovereign has the authority to determine what laws are necessary
for the functioning of the state. The laws are derived from the sovereign's power and are a
reflection of their will and command. The citizens are obligated to obey the laws established by
the sovereign, as it is through this obedience that the social contract is upheld and the stability of
the society is maintained.
Locke: According to Locke, the source of laws is the consent of the governed. Laws are derived
from the social contract between individuals and the government, with the aim of protecting
natural rights. The legitimacy of laws lies in their alignment with the common good and the
consent of the people. Should laws violate natural rights, individuals have the right to resist or
challenge the government.
Rosseau: According to Rousseau, the source of laws is the general will of the people. The
general will represents the collective decision-making process and the common interest of the
community. Laws are created through the participation and consent of the citizens, reflecting
their shared values and aspirations. The legitimacy of laws lies in their alignment with the
general will, and the sovereign is responsible for enacting and enforcing laws that serve the
common good. The laws are meant to promote equality, justice, and the well-being of the society
as a whole.

Subject can complain or not about gov conduct

Hobbes: According to Hobbes, individuals do not have the right to complain or challenge the
conduct of the government. Hobbes believed in absolute sovereignty, where the power of the
sovereign is absolute and individuals have surrendered their rights to the sovereign in exchange
for security and order. Criticizing or challenging the government would be seen as a breach of
the social contract.
In contrast, both Locke and Rousseau recognized the right of individuals to complain or
challenge the conduct of the government. Locke believed in limited government and the
protection of natural rights. If the government were to violate these rights, individuals had the
right to resist and potentially overthrow the government. Similarly, Rousseau emphasized the
importance of the general will and the sovereignty of the people. If the government acted
contrary to the general will, individuals had the right to challenge and replace the government.

Is sovereign answerable to public or God?

According to Hobbes, the sovereign is not answerable to the public or to God. Hobbes believed
in the concept of absolute sovereignty, where the sovereign holds complete and unquestionable
power. The sovereign's authority is derived from the social contract, and individuals have
willingly surrendered their rights to the sovereign in exchange for security and order. The
sovereign is not accountable to the public or any higher authority, as their power is absolute and
above reproach.
Locke, on the other hand, believed that the sovereign is answerable to the public. He emphasized
the consent of the governed as the basis of political legitimacy. The government exists to protect
the natural rights of individuals, and if the government were to violate these rights, individuals
have the right to resist and potentially overthrow the government. The sovereign's power is
limited and conditional upon serving the interests of the people.
Rousseau posited the idea of the general will, where the sovereign is answerable to the people.
The general will represents the collective decision-making process and the common interest of
the community. The sovereign's legitimacy lies in their alignment with the general will. If the
government acts contrary to the general will, individuals have the right to challenge and replace
the government.

Public has say in law making?

According to Hobbes, the public does not have a direct say in lawmaking. Hobbes believed in
absolute sovereignty, where the power to make laws rests solely with the sovereign. The
sovereign's authority is derived from the social contract, and individuals have willingly
surrendered their rights to the sovereign in exchange for security and order. The public's role is
to obey and follow the laws established by the sovereign.
Locke, on the other hand, believed in a more participatory approach to lawmaking. He
emphasized the importance of consent and the social contract. Locke argued that the
government's legitimacy stems from the consent of the governed, and individuals have a right to
participate in the making of laws through representative institutions. The public, through their
representatives, has a say in the lawmaking process and can influence the creation and
modification of laws.
Similarly, Rousseau believed in the concept of the general will, which represents the collective
decision-making process of the community. According to Rousseau, the public has a direct say in
lawmaking through the expression of the general will. The general will is the expression of the
common interest of the community and should guide the creation of laws. In this view, the public
plays an active role in the lawmaking process.

Social contract is permanent contract or temporary?

According to Hobbes, the social contract is a permanent contract. Hobbes argued that
individuals enter into the social contract and willingly surrender their rights to the sovereign in
exchange for security and order. Once the social contract is established, it is binding and cannot
be revoked or dissolved by individuals. The sovereign's authority is absolute and enduring, and
individuals are obligated to obey the laws and authority established by the sovereign.

Locke, on the other hand, viewed the social contract as a more flexible and potentially
revocable agreement. Locke believed that individuals enter into the social contract to protect
their natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property. If the government fails to fulfill its
obligations or violates the rights of individuals, Locke argued that individuals have the right to
resist and potentially overthrow the government. In this sense, the social contract can be seen as
a conditional agreement that can be altered or dissolved if the government fails to fulfill its
obligations.
Rousseau saw the social contract as a permanent and unbreakable agreement. According to
Rousseau, individuals voluntarily surrender their natural rights and place them under the control
of the general will. The general will represents the common interest of the community, and
individuals are bound by it. Once the social contract is established, it cannot be dissolved or
altered, as it represents the collective decision-making process and the basis of the social order.

Sovereign is the party of contract or not?

According to Hobbes, the sovereign is indeed a party to the social contract. The social contract
is an agreement between individuals who surrender their rights to the sovereign in exchange for
security and order. The sovereign, in this case, is an absolute authority that holds the power to
make and enforce laws.
In terms of the permanence of the social contract, Hobbes believed it to be a permanent contract.
Once individuals enter into the social contract and establish a sovereign authority, it cannot be
revoked or dissolved by individuals. The social contract forms the foundation of the social order
and individuals are obligated to obey the laws established by the sovereign.
Locke, on the other hand, viewed the social contract as more flexible. While Locke also believed
that the sovereign is a party to the social contract, he argued that if the government fails to
protect the natural rights of individuals, the social contract can be altered or dissolved. This
suggests that Locke saw the social contract as potentially temporary or conditional, depending on
the performance of the government.
Rousseau, similar to Hobbes, believed in a permanent social contract. In his view, the social
contract represents the general will of the community and individuals are bound by it. Once the
social contract is established, it cannot be dissolved or altered, as it forms the basis of the social
order and collective decision-making.

Structure of government
Hobbes: Hobbes advocated for an absolute monarchy as the ideal structure of government. He
believed that a strong and centralized authority, represented by a sovereign ruler, was necessary
to maintain order and prevent the chaos of the state of nature. The sovereign's power is absolute
and individuals surrender their rights to the sovereign in exchange for protection and security.
Locke: Locke proposed a limited government with a separation of powers. He argued that the
primary role of government is to protect the natural rights of individuals, including life, liberty,
and property. Locke advocated for a representative government where the consent of the
governed is essential. He believed that if the government fails to protect the rights of individuals,
they have the right to resist and potentially overthrow the government.
Rousseau: Rousseau envisioned a direct democracy as the ideal structure of government. He
believed in the concept of the general will, which represents the common interest and the
collective decision-making of the community. In a direct democracy, individuals participate
directly in decision-making, ensuring that the general will is reflected in the laws and policies of
the society.

Sovereign power is divisible or not?

According to Hobbes, the sovereign power is indivisible. He believed that the sovereign should
have absolute and undivided power in order to effectively maintain peace and order in society. In
his view, a divided or weak sovereignty would lead to conflict and instability.

Locke, on the other hand, believed in the separation of powers and the division of sovereignty.
He argued for a system where different branches of government, such as the legislative,
executive, and judicial branches, have separate and distinct powers. This division of power is
intended to prevent the abuse of authority and to ensure a system of checks and balances.

Rousseau, similar to Hobbes, believed in the indivisibility of sovereignty. He argued that the
general will, which represents the collective and common interest of the community, should be
sovereign and indivisible. The general will should guide the decisions and actions of the
government, and any attempt to divide or fragment the sovereignty would undermine the unity
and coherence of the state.

Concept of legislative, executive and judiciary

Hobbes: Hobbes did not specifically advocate for a separation of powers or the existence of
distinct branches of government. In his view, the sovereign ruler, who holds absolute power, is
responsible for all aspects of governance, including legislation, execution, and judgment. The
sovereign's authority is centralized and unified.
Locke: Locke proposed a system of government with a separation of powers. He argued for
distinct legislative, executive, and judiciary branches. The legislative branch is responsible for
making laws, the executive branch is tasked with implementing and enforcing those laws, and
the judiciary branch is responsible for interpreting and applying the laws in individual cases. The
separation of powers is intended to prevent the concentration of authority and to ensure a system
of checks and balances.
Rousseau: Rousseau, similar to Hobbes, did not explicitly advocate for a separation of powers.
However, he emphasized the importance of the general will, which represents the collective
decision-making of the community. In his view, the legislative branch, embodying the general
will, is the most important aspect of governance. The executive branch is seen as a subordinate
entity that carries out the decisions of the legislative branch, while the judiciary branch plays a
limited role in interpreting and applying the laws.

Best form of government?

Hobbes: Hobbes believed that an absolute monarchy, where power is concentrated in a single
sovereign ruler, is the best form of government. He argued that a strong and centralized authority
is necessary to maintain peace and order in society, as humans are inherently prone to conflict
and require a powerful ruler to keep them in check.
Locke: Locke favored a constitutional government that respects individual rights and limits the
power of the government. He proposed a representative democracy, where the people elect
representatives to make decisions on their behalf. Locke believed in a government that upholds
the natural rights of its citizens and is accountable to the people.
Rousseau: Rousseau advocated for a direct democracy, where the people themselves participate
in decision-making and exercise sovereignty. He believed that the general will, which represents
the collective interests of the community, should guide the functioning of the government.
Rousseau valued the active participation of citizens in shaping the policies and laws that govern
them.

Traditions, ethics and religion are relevant or not?

Hobbes: Hobbes believed that traditions, ethics, and religion are important in society for
maintaining social order and stability. However, he saw their significance as secondary to the
authority of the sovereign. Hobbes argued that a strong central authority is necessary to enforce
and uphold these values, as they help prevent the "war of all against all" and ensure obedience to
the state.
Locke: Locke recognized the importance of traditions, ethics, and religion in society, but he
placed a greater emphasis on individual rights and freedoms. He believed that individuals have
the right to practice their own religious beliefs and engage in ethical decision-making according
to their own conscience. Locke's view was more tolerant and allowed for diverse religious and
ethical perspectives within the framework of a constitutional government.
Rousseau: Rousseau had a more nuanced view on the role of traditions, ethics, and religion. He
acknowledged their influence in shaping societal values and norms, but he also saw them as
potential sources of inequality and division. Rousseau believed that the general will, which
represents the collective interests of the community, should guide governance. While he
recognized the importance of traditions and religion, he argued that they should be subordinated
to the general will if they hinder the pursuit of the common good.

Unification of public or private interests?

Hobbes: Hobbes believed that the unification of public and private interests is essential for
maintaining social order and stability. He argued that individuals should willingly surrender their
private interests to the authority of a sovereign in order to achieve peace and avoid the state of
nature, characterized by a perpetual war of all against all. Hobbes believed that the sovereign's
role is to act in the best interest of the public, protecting them from harm and ensuring the
common good.
Locke: Locke recognized the importance of both public and private interests but emphasized the
protection of individual rights and freedoms. He argued that the primary purpose of government
is to safeguard the natural rights of individuals, including life, liberty, and property. Locke
believed that the consent of the governed is necessary for political legitimacy, and the
government should serve the interests of the people by protecting their rights and promoting the
common good.
Rousseau: Rousseau focused on the concept of the general will, which represents the collective
interests and common good of the community. He believed that individuals should subordinate
their private interests to the general will, which reflects the true essence of the public interest.
Rousseau argued that the general will should guide governance, ensuring that decisions and
policies are in line with the common good and the well-being of all members of society.

Private property rights?

Hobbes: Hobbes did not place a strong emphasis on private property rights in his political
philosophy. He viewed property as a means to secure one's own self-preservation and well-being.
Hobbes believed that individuals have a natural right to use and possess property as long as it
does not conflict with the peace and order established by the sovereign authority. However, the
sovereign has the power to regulate and redistribute property if it is necessary for the common
good or to maintain social harmony.
Locke: Locke's philosophy is often associated with the defense of private property rights. He
argued that individuals have a natural right to acquire and possess property through their labor
and mixing it with the resources of nature. According to Locke, individuals have the right to
enjoy the fruits of their labor and to possess property as long as they leave enough and as good
for others. He believed that private property rights are crucial for individual liberty, economic
prosperity, and the preservation of natural rights.
Rousseau: Rousseau had a more complex view on private property rights. He recognized the
importance of property for social organization and the development of civilization. However,
Rousseau also believed that private property introduces inequality and divisions in society. He
argued that true property rights are derived from the collective ownership of resources, and that
the general will should determine how property is distributed and used for the common good.
Rousseau was critical of excessive accumulation of wealth and believed in the concept of the
social contract, where individuals willingly surrender some of their property rights to the
community for the benefit of all.

Areas of control and freedom?

Hobbes: Hobbes believed that government should have control over areas related to maintaining
social order and preventing conflicts. This includes law enforcement, defense, and the
administration of justice. In Hobbes' view, individuals should surrender their freedom to the
sovereign authority in exchange for protection and security. The government has the power to
regulate and control these areas to ensure the common good and prevent the state of nature.
Locke: Locke believed in limited government and the protection of individual rights and
freedoms. Government should have control over areas such as protecting natural rights (life,
liberty, and property), enforcing laws, and administering justice. However, Locke emphasized
that individuals should have the freedom to pursue their own interests and engage in voluntary
associations without excessive government interference. Individuals have the right to private
property and the freedom to consent to the government's authority.
Rousseau: Rousseau emphasized the importance of the general will and collective decision-
making in government. Government should have control over areas that promote the common
good and the well-being of the community. This includes areas such as education, social welfare,
and the promotion of civic virtues. Rousseau believed that government should control freedom in
certain areas to prevent inequality, corruption, and the accumulation of wealth. However, he also
emphasized the need for citizen participation in the political process to ensure that the
government represents the will of the people.
Prioritized security over freedom?
Hobbes: Hobbes prioritized security over freedom. He believed that in the state of nature, life
would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. To avoid this chaotic and dangerous state,
Hobbes argued that individuals should willingly surrender their rights and freedoms to a
sovereign authority in exchange for protection and security. In his view, a strong central
authority is necessary to maintain social order and prevent conflicts, even if it means sacrificing
certain freedoms.
Locke: Locke emphasized the protection of individual rights and freedoms. While he recognized
the importance of security, Locke believed that the primary role of government is to protect
natural rights, including life, liberty, and property. He argued that individuals have the right to
rebel against a government that violates these rights. For Locke, security and freedom are not
necessarily mutually exclusive, as a just government should respect and safeguard both.
Rousseau: Rousseau believed in the concept of the general will and the common good. While he
recognized the need for security, Rousseau argued that excessive prioritization of security can
lead to the oppression of individual freedoms. He believed that individuals should participate in
the collective decision-making process to determine the appropriate balance between security
and freedom. Rousseau saw security as important, but not at the expense of individual liberty and
the general will of the people.

Other groups or institutions should exist or not in addition

to government?
Hobbes: Hobbes believed that a strong central government is necessary to maintain social order
and prevent conflicts. He argued that individuals should surrender their rights and freedoms to a
sovereign authority, which would have absolute power and control over all aspects of
governance. Hobbes did not emphasize the existence of other groups or institutions alongside the
government, as he believed that a unified and authoritative government is essential for
maintaining stability and preventing chaos.
Locke: Locke acknowledged the importance of other groups and institutions alongside the
government. He believed in limited government and the protection of individual rights and
freedoms. Locke emphasized the idea of a social contract, where individuals voluntarily come
together to form a government to protect their natural rights. Alongside the government, other
groups such as voluntary associations, community organizations, and civil society play a crucial
role in promoting the well-being and interests of individuals. These groups provide avenues for
social interaction, cooperation, and the expression of diverse perspectives.
Rousseau: Rousseau emphasized the importance of the general will and collective decision-
making. While he acknowledged the existence of government as a necessary institution, he also
recognized the significance of other groups and institutions in addition to the government.
Rousseau believed in the importance of citizen participation and involvement in decision-making
processes. He emphasized the existence of communal institutions and associations that enable
individuals to express their will and contribute to the common good. These institutions,
alongside the government, play a role in shaping and representing the interests of the people.

Sovereign control over religious matters?

Hobbes: Hobbes believed that the sovereign authority should have control over religious
matters. He argued for a unified and authoritative government that encompasses both civil and
religious power. Hobbes believed that religious unity and uniformity were essential for
maintaining social order and preventing internal conflicts. He advocated for the sovereign's
control over religious institutions and practices in order to prevent divisions and ensure the
stability of the state.
Locke: Locke, on the other hand, emphasized religious toleration and the separation of church
and state. He believed in the protection of individual rights, including freedom of conscience and
religious liberty. Locke argued that religion is a matter of personal belief and should not be
subject to coercive control by the state. He advocated for a limited role of the government in
religious affairs, promoting religious toleration and allowing individuals to freely practice their
chosen faith.
Rousseau: Rousseau had a complex view on sovereign control over religious matters. He
recognized the importance of religious beliefs in society but also saw the potential for religious
divisions to destabilize the state. Rousseau believed in the concept of the general will, where the
collective decisions of the people determine the laws and policies of the state. He argued for the
subordination of religious interests to the general will, emphasizing the need for a common
religious faith that aligns with the interests of the state. Rousseau proposed a civil religion, a
symbolic and unifying faith that serves the public interest while allowing for individual freedom
of conscience

Consent theory
Hobbes: Hobbes did not place significant emphasis on consent theory in the same way as Locke
and Rousseau. He believed that individuals enter into a social contract and surrender their rights
and freedoms to a sovereign authority out of self-interest and the need for security. Hobbes
argued that consent is implied through this social contract, but he did not view it as a prerequisite
for the legitimacy of government. Instead, he emphasized the importance of maintaining social
order and stability through a strong central authority.
Locke: Locke's political philosophy is rooted in the idea of consent theory. He believed that
legitimate political authority is derived from the consent of the governed. According to Locke,
individuals have natural rights, including life, liberty, and property, and they form a social
contract with a government to protect these rights. Consent is essential for the establishment and
continuation of legitimate political authority. Locke argued that if a government fails to protect
the rights of individuals or exceeds its authority, the people have the right to withdraw their
consent and seek a new form of governance.
Rousseau: Rousseau also emphasized the importance of consent in his political philosophy. He
believed in the concept of the general will, which represents the collective agreement and
consent of the people. According to Rousseau, legitimate political authority arises from the
general will and the consent of the governed. He argued that individuals should participate in the
formation of laws and policies through direct democracy, ensuring that their consent is expressed
in the decisions of the state. Rousseau believed that true political legitimacy can only be
achieved when the general will aligns with the interests and consent of the people.

Theory of limited government or negative state

Hobbes: Hobbes did not advocate for a limited or negative state. In his view, a strong and
centralized state was necessary to maintain social order and prevent the chaotic state of nature.
Hobbes believed that individuals should surrender their rights and freedoms to a sovereign
authority in exchange for protection and security. He argued for a powerful Leviathan, a
government with absolute power, to ensure the stability and well-being of society.
Locke: Locke, in contrast, supported the theory of limited or negative state. He believed in the
protection of individual rights and limited government power. Locke argued that the primary role
of government is to protect the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. He advocated for a
social contract where individuals voluntarily consent to be governed, and the government's
authority is derived from the people. Locke emphasized the importance of checks and balances,
separation of powers, and the right of the people to hold their government accountable.
Rousseau: Rousseau's perspective on the theory of limited or negative state is nuanced. While he
believed in the importance of individual freedom, he also recognized the need for a collective
will to guide the governance of society. Rousseau proposed a more active role for the state in
shaping the general will and ensuring the common good. He argued for a participatory
democracy, where individuals have a direct say in decision-making, and the government operates
based on the general will. However, Rousseau also cautioned against excessive state power and
emphasized the need for limitations and checks on government authority.