Table of Contents
- Historical Origins of Contractarianism
- Key Principles of Contractarianism
- Major Theorists of Contractarianism
- Relevance of Contractarianism in Contemporary Discourse
- Conclusion
Contractarianism is a normative ethical theory that posits that moral norms derive their authority from the idea of a social contract. This approach to moral and political philosophy suggests that moral norms and political arrangements are justified if they could be the object of a hypothetical agreement among rational individuals. The concept traces its roots to the early modern period, particularly in the works of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. However, it has evolved significantly with contemporary interpretations, most notably those of John Rawls and David Gauthier. This essay will provide an in-depth outline and explanation of Contractarianism, focusing on its historical origins, key principles, major theorists, and its relevance in contemporary socio-political discourse.
Historical Origins of Contractarianism
Thomas Hobbes and the State of Nature
Thomas Hobbes is often considered the father of modern Contractarianism. His seminal work, “Leviathan” (1651), outlines his version of the social contract theory. Hobbes begins with the concept of the “state of nature,” a hypothetical scenario in which humans exist without a common power to keep them in awe. In this state, individuals are guided by self-interest and natural desires, leading to a life that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
Hobbes argues that in the state of nature, there is a constant state of war of “every man against every man.” To escape this anarchy, individuals collectively agree to surrender some of their freedoms to a sovereign authority in exchange for security and order. This mutual transfer of rights forms the basis of the social contract. The sovereign, or Leviathan, wields absolute power to enforce peace and prevent the return to the state of nature.
John Locke and the Protection of Rights
In contrast to Hobbes, John Locke’s vision of the social contract, as articulated in his “Two Treatises of Government” (1689), is more optimistic about human nature and less authoritarian. Locke also begins with a state of nature, but he views it as a state of relative peace and equality, governed by natural law. According to Locke, natural law endows individuals with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and property.
The social contract, in Locke’s theory, is an agreement to form a government that will protect these natural rights. Unlike Hobbes’ absolute sovereign, Locke’s government is limited and exists only to serve the will of the people. If the government fails to protect their rights or becomes tyrannical, the people have the right to revolt and establish a new government.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the General Will
Jean-Jacques Rousseau offers another significant variation of Contractarianism in his work “The Social Contract” (1762). Rousseau starts with the premise that humans are inherently good but become corrupted by society. In the state of nature, people are free and equal, but as societies develop, inequality and dependence arise.
Rousseau’s social contract aims to restore freedom and equality by establishing a collective “general will,” which represents the common interests of all people. Individuals agree to form a community where they are both the authors and subjects of the laws. In this arrangement, the general will is sovereign, and individuals are free because they obey laws they have prescribed for themselves. Rousseau’s theory emphasizes direct democracy and collective decision-making.
