LOCKE AND ROUSSEAU

Mohammad Alzaim Mohd Hassan

100883431
PSCI 2302 B
Marc Hanvelt
PSCI 2302 B08
Colin Cordner

The state of nature can be viewed as a place of complete

freedom as individuals are allowed to act arbitrarily, only if they
maintain the law of nature.1 In a situation that allows full freedom,
why would anyone leave the state of nature? This question brings
about the ideas of two social contract theorists, John Locke and JeanJacques Rousseau who argue that the state of nature lacks the
proper structure and security that a social contract would provide.
The social contract is seen as a pact between individuals who join
together and surrender their individual authority to a government or
majority in return for the preservation of themselves. However,
individuals are more apprehensive about surrendering their complete
freedom in order to live under the fragility of political society as
these citizens would appear to gain little and instead lose their
freedoms under the laws of political leaders. Whereas, Locke and
Rousseau feature different models of political society, they reach
consensus with utilizing the social contract to form a political society
under a legitimate political power that could fix most of the
insecurities found in the erratic conditions of the state of nature.
Both John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau agreed that the
individuals should sign a social contract for political society to ensure
the preservation of the individuals through a legitimate authority.
Being social contract theorists, both thinkers dive heavily into
the discussion of the contract and why individuals would ever push
towards one. The authority that the ruling government would posses
1 John Locke and C. B. Macpherson, Second Treatise of Government (Indianapolis,
Ind.: Hackett Pub. Co., 1980), 9.

in a political society concerns all individuals in the state of nature,

possibly even discouraging them from forming a political society. In
his writing, John Locke describes the usage of political power and its
legitimacy. And this power has its original only from compact and
agreement, and the mutual consent of those who make up the
community.2 Political power gains its legitimacy solely from the
consent of the citizens of society, which Locke explains is done with
the social contract that exchanges this consent with assurances for
their safety and security. Without this consent, anybody that
attempts to exercise authority in a political society is illegitimate,
and that society is void. Jean-Jacques Rousseau also discussed the
social contract and describes it as a situation where an individual
gives himself whole and entire3 where he gains the equivalent of
everything he loses, along with a greater amount of force to
preserve what he has,4 in order to form a community that is equal
and follows the notion of the general will. Rousseau clarifies the
source of legitimacy for political power when he says the social
compact gives the body politic an absolute power over all its
members, which, according to him, is similar to how nature gives
each man an absolute power over all his members.5 The two
theorists appear to coincide in their discussions of political
legitimacy by agreeing that individuals are not obliged to obey
political power if they have not consented. Legitimacy is the vital
2 Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 89.
3 Jean Rousseau and Donald A. Cress, Basic Political Writings. 2nd ed.
(Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. Co., 2011), 164.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid., 173.

ingredient to political society because it ensures that the individuals

obey the government, which they consented into power through the
social contract to reap the protection and stability of political society.
In the state of nature, there are no laws besides the law of nature,
thus humans can act freely as hey please. However, as evidenced
with Lockes introduction of property, the law of nature is not
sufficient to preserve the lives and property of individuals in a state
of complete freedom.6 Thus, the introduction of government through
the social contract can be seen as beneficial in remedying this
dilemma. Within the government, Locke describes the legislative as
a temporary body that has the right to create laws to ensure the
preservation of the society, and of every person in it.4 They do
possess limitations and cannot destroy, enslave, or designedly to
impoverish the subjects.5. The legislative can only create these laws
when in office which would be enforced for the preservation of its
citizens and their property. To legitimize the laws, Locke states that
the legislative should, govern by promulgated established laws, not
to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and
poor7 thus ensuring equality of the citizens regardless of social
class. While Rousseau shares the idea of legitimacy of government
through the social contract, his idea of the structure of government
differs. To Rousseau the legislative power rests with the citizens
themselves who form the sovereign as well as create laws. To ensure
the creation of just laws however, they must be based on the
6 Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 18.
7 Ibid., 75.
3

genuine expressions of the general will, which is described as the

best interests of the society. This makes sense when it is understood
that the general will is common and found in all citizens, which
justifies the laws to be fair since no one is unjust to himself.8 These
laws or chains9 are considered legitimate according to Rousseau as
they are laws that the entire society agreed upon through their
expression of the general will. This notion also prods Lockes view on
consenting to political power through social contract rendering it
legitimate as well. As long as the political authority in society acts
towards the common good, which is understood as the preservation
of the citizens and their property, then both theorists agree that the
authority is legitimate.
Locke acknowledges that in every situation in human history,
here will be individuals who pursue personal interests at the expense
of others, which he attributes as the flaws of human nature.10 In the
state of nature everyone is considered equal in his or her right to
freedom and the law of nature. This would undeniably lead to
problems in cases where the law of nature is broken and a
punishment is needed to settle the issue, as there is no capable
arbiter that would be completely impartial. Locke states that in the
state of nature, there wants a known and indifferent judge, with
authority to determine all differences according to the established
law.11 Thus, the social contract would fix this flaw with the
8 Rousseau, Basic Political Writings, 179.
9 Ibid., 156.
10 Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 14.
11 Ibid., 66.
4

government acting as enforcer as well as the impartial judge.

Entering a political society provides the legitimacy for the
government to act as an unbiased judge to resolve conflicts among
individuals since individuals are bad judges due to them tending to
be partial to their own interests.12 For Locke, there would be a
separate body of government dedicated to enforcing the law, which
is known as the executive.13 Further, the executive is separate from
the legislative to prevent partiality in government, which is more
likely to occur if they possessed the power to create and enforce
laws. Rousseau agrees with this point by stating that executive
power cannot belong to the people at large in its role as legislator or
sovereign.14 In a similar vein to that of Locke, Rousseau describes
the role of the government as the execution of the laws and the
preservation of liberty, both civil and political.3 Thus far, the
government for both theorists is understood to only be legitimate
through the social contract and structured to prevent abuse of power
by those granted with authority. Despite the differences regarding
the structure of government, both Locke and Rousseau agree that
upon surrendering political power with the social contract, the
government must act towards the common good. However, the
question then arises, what if the government strays away from the
common good and begins acting upon its own interests?
Just as human nature is vulnerable to corruption, so too are
governments who could use their authority to pursue private
12 Ibid., 12.
13 Ibid., 79.
14 Rousseau, Basic Political Writings, 192.
5

interests against the general will or common good. Locke states that
when this occurs, the social contract becomes void and the
government is rendered illegitimate in that political society.15 When
the government acts in such a way that is detrimental to society, the
government is understood to have entered a state of war with the
people, which legitimize the peoples right to defend him or herself,
also known as the right to revolt according to Locke.16 If the
government utilized force, treasure, and offices to corrupt the
representatives, and gain them to his purposes, the people then
must remove them from their position of authority, as their rule is no
longer legitimate.17 Rousseau discusses a similar situation in his
discussion of the assembly of individuals to form the sovereign. It is
understood that every individual in a political society holds the
responsibility of a citizen, which requires him or her to act as
sovereign as well. Acting as sovereign, they must personally attend
assemblies because sovereignty cannot be represented for the
same reason it cannot be alienated.18 During the assemblies, two
questions that concern the current government is asked, the first
asking if the current form of government is adequate and the second
on whether the current government is working towards the common
good.19 If the sovereign, or the people conclude otherwise, they then
possess the right to remove the government, as this will ensure the
preservation of citizens and the political society. Locke and Rousseau
15 Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 108-109.
16 Ibid., 111.
17 Ibid., 112.
18 Rousseau, Basic Political Writings, 219.
19 Rousseau, Basic Political Writings, 224.
6

described somewhat different methods in determining and removing

illegitimate political power, however reaches consensus on the
importance of removing government that had worked against the
people of the society.
John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau shared similar ideas on
the function of society. However, their ideas on the structure of
government appear to be radically different in a way, which is quite
obvious when comparing side by side. This does not detract from
their ideas on the function of government, which they believe should
always work towards the common good in order for the government
to continue functioning as a legitimate authority. The way
government should be structured is different between the theorists,
but they share the same goals and are structured to add extra
security to prevent abuses. The social contract can be concluded to
function as a legitimizing tool towards the formation of political
society, and ensures that the rights of the citizens are preserved
under a legitimate government that has inherited the political power
of the people. Any form of illegitimate government would be met
with revolt and thus both can agree that the social contract brings
upon the benefit of everyone in that society, unless the government
acts otherwise.

Locke, John, and C. B. Macpherson. Second Treatise of Government.

Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. Co., 1980.

Rousseau, Jean, and Donald A. Cress. Basic Political Writings. 2nd ed.
Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. Co., 2011.