Comparison Between Hobbes, Locke & Rousseau: Social Contract Theory

Rousseau: Social Contract Theory

SUPERVISED BY: Submitted By:

Prof. Saurav Sarmah Anagh Kumar Tiwari

18203

Group 15
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.Introduction

2.Social Contract Theory

Analysis of Social Contract Theory by: -

a. Thomas Hobbes
b. John Locke
c. Rousseau

3.Comparision between Hobbes, Locke & Rousseau

4.Rousseau Views On: -

a) Romanticism
b) Education
c) Philosophy of Nature

5.Critical Apprehension

6.Conclusion
1. INTRODUCTION

The term social contract portrays an expansive class of philosophical hypotheses

whose subject is the inferred understandings by which individuals structure countries
and keep up a social request. In laymen's terms this implies the general population
surrender a portion of their rights to a legislature so as to get assurance and social
request. Social contract theory gives the basis behind the verifiably imperative idea
that genuine state expert must be gotten from the assent of the represented. The
beginning stage for the greater part of these speculations is a heuristic examination of
the human condition missing any social request, named the "condition of nature" or
"normal state". In this condition of being, a person's activity is bound just by his or
her inner voice. From this basic beginning stage, the different highlights of implicit
understanding hypothesis endeavour to clarify, in various ways, why it is in a person's
normal personal responsibility to deliberately surrender the opportunity of activity one
has under the common express (their purported "regular rights") so as to get the
advantages given by the arrangement of social structures.

Normal to these hypotheses is the idea of a sovereign will which all individuals from
a general public are bound by the social contract to regard. The different kinds of
implicit agreement hypothesis that have created are generally separated by their
meaning of the sovereign will, be it a King (government), a Council (theocracy) or
The Majority (republic or vote based system). Under a hypothesis previously
explained by Plato, individuals inside a general public certainly consent to the terms
of the social contract by their decision to remain inside the general public and get
assurance. In this manner certain in many types of implicit agreement is that
opportunity of development is a principal or normal right which society may not truly
require a person to surrender to the sovereign will.

Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are
the most famous philosophers of the social contract theory, which formed the
theoretical groundwork of democracy. Although the theory of natural rights
influenced the development of classical liberalism, its emphasis on individualism and
its rejection of the necessity to subordinate individual liberty to the sovereign will
stands in opposition to the general tenets of social contract theory.1

2. Social Contract Theory

Before the Social Contract, the life in the State of Nature was upbeat and there
was balance among men. As time passed, in any case, mankind confronted certain
changes. As the general populace expanded, the methods by which individuals could
fulfil their requirements needed to change. Individuals gradually started to live
respectively in little families, and afterward in little networks. Divisions of work were
presented, both inside and among families, and revelations and developments made
life less demanding, offering ascend to relaxation time. Such recreation time
definitely driven individuals to make correlations among themselves as well as other
people, bringing about open qualities, prompting disgrace and jealousy, pride and
scorn. Above all be that as it may, as indicated by Rousseau, was the creation of
private property, which comprised the essential minute in mankind's development out
of a basic, unadulterated state into one, portrayed by voracity, rivalry, vanity,
disparity, and bad habit. For Rousseau the development of property establishes
mankind's go wrong out of the State of Nature. For this reason, they surrendered their
rights not to a solitary individual but rather to the network all in all which Rousseau
named as general will. As per Rousseau, the first opportunity, bliss, fairness and
freedom which existed in crude social orders preceding the implicit agreement was
lost in the cutting-edge civilisation. Through Social Contract, another type of social
association the state was shaped to guarantee and ensure rights, freedoms opportunity
and equity. The substance of the Rousseau's hypothesis of General Will is that State
and Law were the result of General Will of the general population. State and the Laws
are made by it and if the legislature and laws don't adjust to general will, they would
be disposed of. While the individual parts with his characteristic rights, consequently

1
The social contract theorists – Critical essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau; edited by Christopher
W. Morris; Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
he gets common freedoms, for example, the right to speak freely, balance, get
together, and so on.
The General Will, subsequently, for all reasons for existing, was the desire of lion's
share nationals to which dazzle acquiescence was to be given. The lion's share was
acknowledged on the conviction that lion's share see is directly than minority see.
Every individual isn't liable to some other individual however to the general will and
to comply with this is to obey himself. His sway is trustworthy, resolute,
unrepresentable and illimitable.
Along these lines, Rousseau supported individuals' sway. His common law hypothesis
is kept to the opportunity and freedom of the person. For him, State, law, power,
general will, and so forth are exchangeable terms. Rousseau's hypothesis motivated
French and American unrests and offered force to patriotism. He based his hypothesis
of implicit understanding on the rule of Man is brought into the world free, however
wherever he is in chains.

Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by Thomas Hobbes

1. Thomas Hobbes theory of Social Contract appeared for the first time in
Leviathan published in the year 1651 during the Civil War in Britain. Thomas
Hobbes legal theory is based on Social contract. According to him, prior to
Social Contract, man lived in the State of Nature. Man’s life in the State of
NATURE was one of fear and selfishness. Man lived in chaotic condition of
constant fear. Life in the State of Nature was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
short. 2
2. Man has a natural desire for security and order. In order to secure self-
protection and self-preservation, and to avoid misery and pain, man entered
into a contract. This idea of self-preservation and self-protection are inherent
in man’s nature and in order to achieve this, they voluntarily surrendered all
their rights and freedoms to some authority by this contract who must command
obedience. As a result of this contract, the mightiest authority is to protect and
preserve their lives and property. This led to the emergence of the institution of

2
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261181816_Summary_of_Social_Contract_Theory_by_H
obbes_Locke_and_Rousseau
 the ruler or monarch, who shall be the absolute head. Subjects had no rights
against the absolute authority or the sovereign and he is to be obeyed in all
situations however bad or unworthy he might be. However, Hobbes placed
moral obligations on the sovereign who shall be bound by natural law.
Hence, it can be deduced that, Hobbes was the supporter of absolutism. In the
opinion of Hobbes, law is dependent upon the sanction of the sovereign and the
Government without sword are but words and of no strength to secure a man at
all. He therefore, reiterated that civil law is the real law because it is
commanded and enforced by the sovereign. Thus, he upheld the principle of
Might is always Right.

3. Hobbes impels subjects to surrender all their rights and vest all liberties in
the sovereign for preservation of peace, life and prosperity of the subjects. It
is in this way the natural law became a moral guide or directive to the
sovereign for preservation of the natural rights of the subjects. For Hobbes all
law is dependent upon the sanction of the sovereign. All real law is civil law,
the law commanded and enforced by the sovereign and are brought into the
world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of particular men, in
such a manner, as they might not hurt but to assist one another and join
together against a common enemy. He advocated for an established order.
Hence, Individualism, materialism, utilitarianism and absolutions are inter-
woven in the theory of Hobbes.

Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by John Locke

John Locke theory of Social Contract is different than that of Hobbes. According to
him, man lived in the State of Nature, but his concept of the State of Nature is different
as contemplated by Hobbesian theory. Locks view about the state of nature is not as
miserable as that of Hobbes. It was reasonably good and enjoyable, but the property
was not secure. He considered State of Nature as a Golden Age. It was a state of peace,
goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation. In that state of nature, men had all the
rights which nature could give them. Locke justifies this by saying that in the State of
Nature, the natural condition of mankind was a state of perfect and complete liberty to
conduct one’s life as one best sees fit. It was free from the interference of others. In
that state of nature, all were equal and independent. This does not mean, however, that
it was a state of license. It was one not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even
anything that one judges to be in one’s interest. The State of Nature, although a state
wherein there was no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions
against laws, was not a state without morality. The State of Nature was pre-political,
but it was not premortal. Persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state,
and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature.
So, the State of Nature was a statue of liberty, where persons are free to pursue their
own interests and plans, free from interference and, because of the Law of Nature and
the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful.3

1.Property plays an essential role in Locke’s argument for civil government

and the contract that establishes it. According to Locke, private property is
created when a person mixes his labour with the raw materials of nature. Given
the implications of the Law of Nature, there are limits as to how much property
one can own: one is not allowed to take so more from nature than oneself can
use, thereby leaving others without enough for themselves, because nature is
given to all of mankind for its common subsistence. One cannot take more
than his own fair share. Property is the linchpin of Locks argument for the
social contract and civil government because it is the protection of their
property, including their property in their own bodies, that men seek when they
decide to abandon the State of Nature.

2.John Locke considered property in the State of Nature as insecure because of

three conditions; they are: -
1. Absence of established law;

2. Absence of impartial Judge; and

3. Absence of natural power to execute natural laws.

Thus, man in the State of Nature felt need to protect their property and for the
purpose of protection of their property, men entered into the Social Contract.
Under the contract, man did not surrender all their rights to one single

3
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261181816_Summary_of_Social_Contract_Theory_by_H
obbes_Locke_and_Rousseau
 individual, but they surrendered only the right to preserve / maintain order and
enforce the law of nature. The individual retained with them the other rights,
i.e., right to life, liberty and estate because these rights were considered natural
and inalienable rights of men.

3.According to Locke, the purpose of the Government and law is to uphold and
protect the natural rights of men. So long as the Government fulfils this
purpose, the laws given by it are valid and binding but, when it ceases to fulfil
it, then the laws would have no validity and the Government can be thrown out
of power. In Locke’s view, unlimited sovereignty is contrary to natural law.

Hence, John Locke advocated the principle of -a statue of liberty; not of

license. Locke advocated a state for the general good of people. He pleaded for
a constitutionally limited government.
Locke, in fact made life, liberty and property, his three cardinal rights, which
greatly dominated and influenced the Declaration of American Independence,
1776.

Hobbes' view was tested in the eighteenth century by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who
guaranteed that Hobbes was taking mingled people and essentially envisioning
them living outside of the general public in which they were raised. He confirmed
rather that individuals were brought into the world unadulterated and great; men
knew neither bad habit nor uprightness since they had no dealings with one
another. Their negative behaviour patterns were the results of human progress
explicitly social chains of importance, property, and markets.

Hobbes' Leviathan had prompt impacts in light of its common nature and he
needed to speak to the progressive English government for assurance which
clarifies his affection for government and appreciation for imperial support.
Leviathan was composed amid the English Civil War; a great part of the book is
busy with showing the need of a solid focal specialist to keep away from the
malice of friction and common war. Any maltreatment of intensity by this expert
are to be acknowledged as the cost of harmony. Specifically, the teaching of
 partition of forces is rejected: the sovereign must control common, military, legal
and clerical forces. Hobbes expressly expresses that the sovereign has expert to
declare control over issues of confidence and precept, and that in the event that
he doesn't do as such, he welcomes disunity.4

Analysis of the theory of Social Contract by Rousseau

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a Genevan rationalist whose political thoughts affected

the French Revolution, the advancement of communist hypothesis, and the
development of patriotism. Rousseau had carried on with a poor life brimming with
hardship and voyaged all over watching the imbalances among the rich and poor and
the different ways of life. This drove him to compose a popular book of his known as
Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men.

Rousseau saw a key gap among society and human instinct. He fought that man was
neither characteristically great nor awful when in the condition of nature (the
condition of every single other creature, and the condition mankind was in before the
formation of human advancement and society), yet is ruined by society. This thought
has frequently prompted the attribution to Rousseau the possibility of the respectable
savage. He held that people are great since they are independent and, in this manner,
not expose to the indecencies of political society. He saw society as fake and held that
the advancement of society, particularly the development of social association, has
been antagonistic to the prosperity of individuals.

He claims that as humans were forced to associate together more closely by the
pressure of population growth, they underwent a psychological transformation and
came to value the good opinion of others as an essential component of their own well-
being. Rousseau associated this new self-awareness with a golden age of human
flourishing. However, the development of agriculture, metallurgy, private property,
and the division of labor led to humans becoming increasingly dependent on one
another, and led to inequality. The resulting state of conflict led Rousseau to suggest
that the first state was invented as a kind of social contract made at the suggestion of
the rich and powerful. This original contract was deeply flawed as the wealthiest and

4
https://study.com/academy/lesson/thomas-hobbes-leviathan-summary-quotes-analysis.html
most powerful members of society tricked the general population, and thus instituted
inequality as a fundamental feature of human society. Rousseau's own conception of
the social contract can be understood as an alternative to this form of association.

In his popular work The Social Contract he starts by saying "Man is brought into the
world free, and wherever he is in chains. One man thinks himself the ace of others, yet
stays even more a slave than they are." Rousseau asserted that the condition of nature
was a crude condition without law or ethical quality, which people left for the
advantages and need of participation. As society created, division of work and private
property required mankind to receive organizations of law. In the ruffian period of
society, man is inclined to be in incessant challenge with his kindred men while in the
meantime ending up progressively reliant on them. This twofold weight undermines the
two his survival and his opportunity. As indicated by Rousseau, by consolidating
through the implicit agreement and relinquishing their cases of characteristic right,
people can both protect themselves and stay free. This is on the grounds that
accommodation to the expert of the general will of the general population all in all
ensures people against being subordinated to the wills of others and furthermore
guarantees that they obey themselves since they are, on the whole, the creators of the
law.

While Rousseau contends that power ought to be in the hands of the peo0ple, he
likewise makes a sharp refinement among sovereign and government. The legislature
is accused of actualizing and authorizing the general will and is made out of a littler
gathering of residents, known as officers. Rousseau's thoughts were powerful at the
season of the French Revolution despite the fact that, since well-known sway was
practiced through agents as opposed to straightforwardly, it can't be said that the
Revolution was in any sense a usage of Rousseau's thoughts.

In Thomas Hobbes book Leviathan-Parts One and Two, he shows a republic managed
by a sovereign head that depends on the laws of nature and the kingdom of God. At the
base of the province is an implicit agreement, which is a pledge restricting the people
of the general public to wills and decisions of the sovereign chief. The agreement
investigates the sociality of the human species and self-conservation which is key to
the human drive. Affected by Hobbes' implicit understanding, Jean Jacques Rousseau
distributed On the Social Contract exhibiting his hypothesis of the implicit agreement
that both extended and contrasted from Hobbes' standards. Rousseau's implicit
understanding displayed the overseeing element to be the general will. In spite of the
fact that Hobbes and Rousseau have varying Social Contracts they each are spoken to
by the expression "A kingdom separated can't remain;" for, the previous is a reference
to a government and the last is a reference to the general will.

In addition to humankinds’ tendency towards asociality, Hobbes presents people as

being inclined towards self-preservation above all other concerns. The theme of self-
preservation is presented in what Hobbes calls the right of nature. He explains this
fundamental concept to be, “the liberty each man has to use his own power, as he will
himself, for the preservation of his own nature- that is to say, of his own life”, meaning
that any man can go to whatever lengths necessary in order to preserve his own life.
Furthermore, an additional law of nature notes that, as a general rule, a man is prohibited
from behaving in a manner that is destructive to his life. Hobbes also supports what the
Christian bible has entitled “the golden rule,” or the declaration that one should behave,
as he or she would wish to be treated. This is a law of self-preservation which, if
ardently followed, would greatly increase peace. Yet, the golden rule is not often
followed in the state of war; for, one is disinterested in any other man’s desires besides
his own. Thus, according to Hobbes, in a state of war man is allowed to behave in any
manner he wishes; however, his primary interest and natural guide are the rules of self-
preservation.5

Both humankinds’ nature of asociality and tendency towards self-preservation are

incorporated into Thomas Hobbes’ social contract. His social contract presents a
commonwealth in which there is one sovereign leader, to which all of his subjects have
pledged a covenant to surrender their judgments to those wills and judgments of the
sovereign. The covenant between the subjects and the sovereign entails very specific
rules of conduct. First, the subjects are bound to maintain the same form of the
government. They cannot lawfully make a new covenant among themselves; nor, can
they break their covenant to the sovereign in any form. For, if one-man dissents all of

5
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261181816_Summary_of_Social_Contract_Theory_by_H
obbes_Locke_and_Rousseau
the other subjects should leave the commonwealth and return to a state of war, but this
is a great injustice. In addition, they cannot try to replace their covenant to the sovereign
with a covenant to God, for a covenant with God must be a lie, unless a subject was
contacted by God, himself, which, one must admit, is highly unlikely. Second, a
sovereign cannot break the covenant with his subjects. Thus, none of his subjects can
be freed from his discretion and will. Third, the subject is never endowed with the
power to punish the sovereign. Fourth, the roll of the sovereign is to perform whatever
is necessary in order to maintain a state of peace and to defend for all of his subjects.
Also, the sovereign determines what doctrines are appropriate to teach his subjects.
Fifth, the sovereign is endowed with the right to create governing rules. According to
such rules, subjects must lead his life. Furthermore, he has the right to declare peace or
war. Lastly, he develops a hierarchy within the subjects, pending on their level of
honour.

Hobbes believed that the sovereign ruler must be endowed with utter control; for he
believed, “a kingdom divided in itself cannot stand”. He recognized that often the
dissolution of a commonwealth occurs due to the division of the sovereign power. For
instance, if two states join together, yet each maintains their previous rulers, the subjects
will never have a definitive ruler or social code. Dissolution of the commonwealth is
also spurred by abuse of power, monopolies, conquering of a state during wartime, and
private judgments of good and evil. Although it is always an injustice if a subject
question the rulings of the sovereign, Hobbes occasionally acknowledges that it is
necessary.
It is clear that Hobbes’ Leviathan influenced the social contract put forth by Jean-
Jacques Rousseau entitled On the Social Contract. At the onset of his book, Rousseau
presents the fundamental problem for which he has developed his social contract:
Find a form of association which defends and protects with all common forces the
person and goods of each associate, and by means of which each one, while uniting
with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as before.

Hobbes’ Leviathan: Parts One and Two, presents a moral code of conduct established
through prudence and science. His proposed commonwealth attempts to protect men
from one another by unifying a group of subjects under one sovereign leader. His
theory, however, does not account for potential lunatic dictators who incur mass
genocide on their people or develop a state of divided classes, with an extremely
impoverished lower class and an unnecessarily wealthy upper class, or overall misuse
of their ultimate control. Yet, Rousseau’s social contract has its negative points too. As
Rousseau admits, the general public does not have the intellectual capability to
rationalize the general good. Individuals may maintain the best intentions of
determining the general will, yet each response will be skewed. Thus, one needs to take
into account only their intentions; yet, it is impossible to accordingly determine the
general will. Hence, neither Hobbes nor Rousseau’s social contract is perfect.

3.COMPARISION OF THE THEORY OF SOCIAL CONTRACT OF

THOMAS HOBBES, JOHN LOCKE AND JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU

1. Hobbes asserts that without subjection to a common power of their rights

and freedoms, men are necessarily at war. Locke and Rousseau, on the
contrary, set forth the view that the state exists to preserve and protect the
natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens
have the right and sometimes the duty to withdraw their support and even
to rebel.
2. Hobbes view was that whatever the state does is just. All of society is a
direct creation of the state, and a reflection of the will of the ruler.
According to Locke, the only important role of the state is to ensure that
justice is seen to be done. While Rousseau view is that the State must in all
circumstance ensure freedom and liberty of individuals.
3. Hobbes theory of Social Contract supports absolute sovereign without
giving any value to individuals, while Locke and Rousseau support
individual than the state or the government.
4. To Hobbes, the sovereign and the government are identical but Rousseau
makes a distinction between the two. He rules out a representative form of
government.
But Locke does not make any such distinction.
5. Rousseau╆s view of sovereignty was a compromise between the
constitutionalism of Locke and absolutism of Hobbes.
4.Rousseau’s Views on:

a) Romanticism

Jean-Jacques Rousseau composed his most outstanding works amid the

Enlightenment time frame, yet it would be his effect on the following time of sly
masterminds which would acquire him the title 'the Father of Romanticism'.
Sentimentalism was brought into the world after when parody, analysis, logical idea,
and congruity were the request of the day. It supplanted the unpleasant considerations
of past periods with ones of independence, an adoration for nature, and of
opportunity. Rousseau's impact on the coming time was most unmistakable with his
personal history titled Confessions. It recounted an amazing tale beginning at a
youthful age until he achieved the later long periods of his life. Rousseau wished to be
entirely honest in a mind-blowing retelling history and left minimal out of his
composition. He went to depict his conduct as a devilish youngster, and in his years
following immaturity, his different sexual encounters. The portrayal Rousseau gave of
his life, and the little reservations he had about retelling it, would have impacted the
Romantic time frame extraordinarily as his personal history did not pursue the societal
principles and builds of the Enlightenment time frame. Rousseau's works made ready
for future Romantic period journalists like Edgar Allen Poe, William Blake, John
Keats, and Mary Shelly who without Rousseau might not have gotten the opportunity
to free their own inventive personalities.6

b) Education

Rousseau’s ideas about education are mainly expounded in Emile. In that work, he
advances the idea of “negative education”, which is a form of “child-centered”
education. His essential idea is that education should be carried out, so far as possible,
in harmony with the development of the child’s natural capacities by a process of
apparently autonomous discovery. This is in contrast to a model of education where
the teacher is a figure of authority who conveys knowledge and skills according to a
pre-determined curriculum. Rousseau depends here on his thesis of natural goodness,

6
https://blogs.ubc.ca/a1lieblang/2016/11/04/jean-jacques-rousseau-the-father-of-romanticism/
which he asserts at the beginning of the book, and his educational scheme involves
the protection and development of the child’s natural goodness through various
stages, along with the isolation of the child from the domineering wills of others. Up
to adolescence at least, the educational program comprises a sequence of
manipulations of the environment by the tutor. The child is not told what to do or
think but is led to draw its own conclusions as a result of its own explorations, the
context for which has been carefully arranged. The first stage of the program starts in
infancy, where Rousseau’s crucial concern is to avoid conveying the idea that human
relations are essentially ones of domination and subordination, an idea that can too
easily by fostered in the infant by the conjunction of its own dependence on parental
care and its power to get attention by crying. Though the young child must be
protected from physical harm, Rousseau is keen that it gets used to the exercise of its
bodily powers and he therefore advises that the child be left as free as possible rather
than being confined or constrained.7 From the age of about twelve or so, the program
moves on to the acquisition of abstract skills and concepts. This is not done with the
use of books or formal lessons, but rather through practical experience. The third
phase of education coincides with puberty and early adulthood. The period of
isolation comes to an end and the child starts to take an interest in others (particularly
the opposite sex), and in how he or she is regarded. At this stage the great danger is
that excessive amour proper will extend to exacting recognition from others,
disregarding their worth, and demanding subordination. The task of the tutor is to
ensure that the pupil’s relations with others are first mediated through the passion
of pitied (compassion) so that through the idea of the suffering others, of care, and of
gratitude, the pupil finds a secure place for the recognition of his own moral worth
where his amour proper is established on a non-competitive basis. The final period of
education involves the tutor changing from a manipulator of the child’s environment
into the adult’s trusted advisor. The young and autonomous adult finds a spouse who
can be another source of secure and non-competitive recognition. This final phase
also involves instruction into the nature of the social world, including the doctrines of
Rousseau’s political philosophy.8

7
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau
8
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/
c) Philosophy of Nature

The Philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau is a huge moral and political edifice.

From Emile to the Social Contract, Rousseau presents his vision of humanity as it
should be Rousseau has a deep dislike and disgust for the man as he is. His
philosophy is essentially reactive, reactionary against the society and the modernity.

In the Discourse on the origin of inequality among men, Rousseau develops an

extended metaphor about the state of nature, that is to say the pre-civilizational state.
He describes this period of humanity as the happiest of humanity. In state of nature,
man is self-sufficient and cultivates his plot of land freely. Man is stupid, strong,
candid, natural being. He knows neither good nor evil and lives in the present, worry-
free about tomorrow. Cons Hobbes, who described the state of nature as a state of
war, Rousseau makes the pre-civilizational state a time of peace and defending the
myth of the noble savage, pure face that the civilized man corrupted.

But one day he finds someone to assert his right to a cultivable land: Property is born,
and with it the downfall of humanity. The advent of the property creates inequality
and a new competition between men. Civil society is established, the man driving his
innocence.

Rousseau is illustrated by a deep pessimism about the history of civilization in general

and in particular, and rather smug optimism about human nature.

“I wish that companies should choose such a young man, he thought well of those
who live with him and that he should learn to know the world so well, he thought of
all that bad done there. He knows that man is naturally good, he feels, he considers his
next of itself, but he sees how society corrupts and perverts the men he finds in their
prejudice the source of all their vices, that he be brought to estimate each individual,
but he despises the multitude he sees that all men are roughly the same mask, but he
also knows that there are more beautiful than the face mask that covers”9

9
https://www.the-philosophy.com/rousseau-human-nature
5. CRITICAL APPREHENTION

1.Rousseau propounded that state, law and the administration are exchangeable,
however this in present scenario is unique. Despite the fact that administration can be
ousted yet not the state. A state exists even there is no legislature.

2.Hobbes idea of absolutism is absolutely an obscure idea in present situation.

Majority rule government is the need and precedents might be taken from Burma and
different countries.

3.According to Hobbes, the sovereign ought to have supreme expert. This is against
the standard of law since total power in one specialist brings discretion.

4.Locke idea of State of nature is obscure as any contention concerning property

dependably prompts devastation in any general public. Subsequently, there can't be a
general public in harmony on the off chance that they have been strife with respect to
property.

5.Locke idea of free enterprise isn't of welfare arranged. Presently in present situation,
each state embrace ventures to shape a welfare state.10

6. Conclusion

A populace in a surrendered region gave as much capacity to a legislature as expected

to advance the prosperity of all. In doing as such, they made a sovereign state and the
primary topic of implicit understanding hypothesis is to methodically build up the
essential parts that warrant the arrangement of human networks, offering ascend to the
formation of overseeing elements, all through an underlying arrangement of pledges a
people consent to go into, so as to reinforce their prospects for individual self-
protection by being individuals from a more noteworthy society; this is the implicit
agreement.

10
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261181816_Summary_of_Social_Contract_Theory_by_H
obbes_Locke_and_Rousseau/download