Philosophy
The Social Contract Theory of Hobbes and Locke
Quick fact
Hobbes wrote his social contract theory during the English Civil War, while Locke wrote partly to justify the Glorious Revolution; both used the same idea to reach opposite conclusions about government power.
Why this is interesting
Why do we obey our government? Two philosophers, Hobbes and Locke, answered this question in opposite ways—and their ideas still shape debates about liberty and authority today.
Read the full explanation
Understanding The Social Contract Theory of Hobbes and Locke
The social contract theory imagines a 'state of nature'—life before any government. For Hobbes, this state was a brutal war of every person against every other, making life 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' To escape this, people collectively agreed to surrender their freedom to an absolute sovereign (a Leviathan) who would enforce peace. For Locke, the state of nature was more peaceful but insecure because people's natural rights (life, liberty, property) were constantly threatened. People thus consent to form a government that protects these rights, but they retain the right to overthrow a ruler who violates the contract.
A deeper explanation
The mechanism underlying both theories is the idea that legitimate political authority arises from the consent of the governed, not from divine right or force. Hobbes built his theory on pessimistic anthropology: humans are driven by fear and self-interest, so only an all-powerful ruler can prevent chaos. Locke, by contrast, grounded his theory in natural law and rationality: humans can recognize moral rules, so government should be limited and accountable. The contrast reveals two enduring tensions in political philosophy: order vs. liberty, and the extent of state power. These frameworks influenced revolutionary movements (e.g., the American and French Revolutions) and continue to inform debates about the proper role of government.