Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Social contract theory sits at the heart of political philosophy. It's the framework philosophers use to answer the most fundamental questions about government: Why should anyone obey the state? What makes political authority legitimate? When can citizens justifiably resist?
You're being tested not just on what Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Rawls said, but on how their different assumptions lead to radically different conclusions about rights, freedom, and the purpose of government.
These thinkers built their theories on competing visions of human nature and the "state of nature," and those foundational differences ripple through every aspect of their political philosophy. Understanding why Hobbes demands absolute sovereignty while Locke insists on the right to revolt will help you tackle comparison questions, evaluate arguments critically, and construct your own philosophical positions. Don't just memorize names and dates. Know what problem each thinker is solving and what assumptions drive their solutions.
Before diving into individual thinkers, you need to master the conceptual toolkit they all share. These terms appear across multiple theories but carry different meanings depending on the philosopher.
The state of nature is a hypothetical pre-political condition. It's a thought experiment philosophers use to isolate what humans are like before government shapes their behavior. It's not meant as literal history (though Locke sometimes gestures in that direction). Its real function is as a justification device: by showing what life would be like without government, philosophers argue for why we need political authority and what form it should take.
The state of nature varies dramatically by thinker. Hobbes sees war, Locke sees inconvenience, Rousseau sees innocence. These differences determine everything else in their theories.
Natural rights are inherent rights that exist independently of government. Locke's classic formulation identifies them as life, liberty, and property. Because they are pre-political, legitimate governments must protect these rights, not grant them. A government that violates natural rights has, on this view, undermined its own reason for existing.
This concept is central to liberal political theory and directly influenced the Declaration of Independence, modern human rights frameworks, and constitutional design.
Political authority is only justified when those subject to it have consented to its power. But what counts as consent? There's an important distinction here:
Consent creates accountability. If authority derives from the agreement of the governed, citizens retain the power to withdraw that agreement when government fails its obligations.
Compare: Natural rights vs. consent of the governed. Both limit government power, but natural rights set substantive boundaries (what government can't do), while consent establishes procedural legitimacy (how government gains authority). FRQs often ask you to explain how these concepts work together.
Each of these thinkers starts from the state of nature but reaches strikingly different conclusions. Pay attention to their assumptions about human nature. That's where the divergence begins.
Hobbes paints the bleakest picture. In his state of nature, there is no common power to keep people in check, so life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Three drives fuel this perpetual conflict: competition for resources, distrust of others, and the desire for glory.
His solution is absolute sovereignty. Individuals surrender all rights (except the bare right to self-preservation) to an all-powerful sovereign, the Leviathan, who maintains order through fear. There is no right to revolt. Once the contract is made, citizens cannot legitimately resist, because any government, no matter how oppressive, is better than the chaos of the state of nature.
Notice the logic: the worse you think the state of nature is, the more power you'll be willing to hand over to escape it.
Locke's state of nature is far less terrifying. Humans are naturally free and equal, and reason teaches them a basic moral law: don't harm others in their life, liberty, or property. The problem isn't that people are savage. It's that without government, there are no impartial judges and no reliable enforcement mechanisms. Disputes over property escalate because everyone is judge in their own case.
Government is therefore a limited trust, not an absolute transfer of power. Its sole purpose is to protect natural rights to life, liberty, and property. And because authority is conditional, Locke insists on a right of revolution: when government systematically violates natural rights, citizens may dissolve it and form a new one.
Rousseau breaks from both Hobbes and Locke by arguing that humans are naturally good but corrupted by society. In the pure state of nature, people are solitary, self-sufficient, and moved by compassion. It's the development of private property and social inequality that creates competition, vanity, and dependence, deforming our authentic selves.
His solution isn't to go back to nature but to create a political community guided by the general will. The general will represents the common good, not just majority preference. A vote where everyone pursues narrow self-interest doesn't express the general will; genuine deliberation about what's best for the community does.
For Rousseau, freedom means participation. True liberty is obeying laws you've helped create, not submission to an external sovereign. This inverts Hobbes' framework entirely: where Hobbes sees freedom as what you give up for security, Rousseau sees it as what you gain through collective self-governance.
Compare: Hobbes vs. Locke on the right to revolt. Both ground authority in consent, but Hobbes sees the contract as irrevocable (chaos is always worse), while Locke treats it as conditional (tyranny is worse than instability). If an FRQ asks about justified resistance, contrast these positions directly.
Rawls transforms social contract thinking by asking not "Did we actually consent?" but "What principles would we choose under fair conditions?" This hypothetical approach sidesteps historical objections to classical theories.
Rawls introduces the original position, a thought experiment where rational agents choose principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance. Behind the veil, you don't know your race, class, gender, talents, or even your conception of the good life. You know general facts about how societies work, but nothing about where you'd end up in the society you're designing.
From this position, Rawls argues rational agents would choose two principles of justice:
That second condition is the difference principle, and it's the most distinctive and debated part of Rawls' theory. It doesn't demand perfect equality. It says inequality is acceptable only when it makes the worst-off group better off than they'd be under any alternative arrangement.
The overarching idea is justice as fairness: legitimate institutions are those that free, equal persons would agree to under conditions that eliminate bias and self-interest.
Compare: Classical contracts (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) vs. Rawls. Classical theorists imagine agreements that could have (or did) take place historically, while Rawls uses a purely hypothetical contract to derive principles. This makes Rawls less vulnerable to the objection that "nobody actually signed anything."
Understanding why social contract theory matters and where it falls short is essential for evaluation questions and for developing your own philosophical positions.
The social contract transforms raw power into legitimate authority. Without it, obedience to the state looks like mere submission to force. With it, obedience becomes a moral obligation grounded in agreement.
The basic structure is a trade-off: individuals surrender some freedoms (e.g., the freedom to take personal vengeance) in exchange for security, rights protection, and social cooperation. The contract also provides standards for criticism. If authority depends on fulfilling certain obligations, governments that fail those obligations can be judged illegitimate.
Compare: Rawls' response to the historical fiction objection. By making the contract explicitly hypothetical and focusing on what rational people would choose, Rawls avoids claiming anyone actually consented. However, critics ask whether hypothetical consent can obligate real people. If no one actually agreed, why should anyone feel bound?
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Pessimistic view of human nature | Hobbes (war of all against all) |
| Optimistic view of human nature | Rousseau (natural goodness), Locke (rational cooperation) |
| Absolute sovereignty | Hobbes' Leviathan |
| Limited government | Locke's conditional trust |
| Right to revolt | Locke (explicitly), Rousseau (implicitly through general will) |
| Hypothetical contract method | Rawls' original position and veil of ignorance |
| Natural rights foundation | Locke (life, liberty, property) |
| Collective self-governance | Rousseau's general will |
| Difference principle | Rawls (inequalities must benefit the least advantaged) |
Compare and contrast Hobbes' and Locke's views on the state of nature. How do their different assumptions lead to different conclusions about the right to revolt?
Which two thinkers would agree that legitimate government requires consent but disagree about whether citizens can ever justifiably overthrow their rulers? Explain the reasoning behind each position.
How does Rawls' "veil of ignorance" attempt to solve the problem of self-interested bias in choosing principles of justice? What assumptions does this thought experiment require?
A critic argues that social contract theory cannot generate real political obligations because no one actually signed a contract. How might Locke respond using the concept of tacit consent? How might Rawls respond differently?
FRQ-style prompt: Rousseau claims that true freedom is "obedience to a law one prescribes to oneself." Explain how this conception of freedom differs from Hobbes' view, and evaluate which better captures the relationship between liberty and political authority.