The concept of consent has played a critical role in the history of philosophy, particularly in political philosophy. Consent refers to an agreement between two or more parties, usually involving the exchange of goods, services, or obligations. In political philosophy, consent refers to the agreement between the governed and the government regarding the rules and regulations that govern the society. Two notable philosophers who discussed the role of consent in the social contract are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. In this essay, I will analyze the concept of consent in the social contract of Hobbes and Locke and compare their views on the subject.
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher who lived from 1588 to 1679. He is best known for his work, “Leviathan,” in which he discussed the nature of man and the role of government. According to Hobbes, the state of nature is a state of war, in which every individual is at war with every other individual. In this state of nature, life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes believed that the only way to escape the state of nature and to establish a civil society was through a social contract.
For Hobbes, the social contract was an agreement between the governed and the government. The governed agreed to give up their natural rights to the government in exchange for protection and security. The government, in turn, agreed to protect the governed from the dangers of the state of nature. According to Hobbes, the social contract was not a mutual agreement between equal parties, but rather an agreement between unequal parties. The governed were required to submit to the authority of the government, and the government had the right to use force to maintain order.
In Hobbes’ view, consent played a minimal role in the social contract. He believed that individuals did not have the right to dissent from the government, as the government had the power to maintain order and to protect the governed. The governed were required to obey the government, regardless of their personal beliefs or opinions. Hobbes believed that the social contract was a one-way street, in which the governed gave up their natural rights in exchange for protection and security from the government.
John Locke was an English philosopher who lived from 1632 to 1704. He is best known for his work, “Two Treatises of Government,” in which he discussed the nature of man and the role of government. According to Locke, the state of nature was a state of freedom and equality, in which every individual had the right to life, liberty, and property. Locke believed that individuals had the right to govern themselves and that government was only legitimate if it had the consent of the governed.
For Locke, the social contract was a mutual agreement between the governed and the government. The governed agreed to give up some of their natural rights to the government in exchange for protection and security. The government, in turn, agreed to protect the natural rights of the governed and to govern with their consent. According to Locke, the social contract was a two-way street, in which both parties had obligations to each other.
In Locke’s view, consent played a critical role in the social contract. He believed that individuals had the right to dissent from the government if the government failed to protect their natural rights. Locke argued that the government was only legitimate if it had the consent of the governed and that the governed had the right to revoke their consent if the government failed to fulfill its obligations. According to Locke, the social contract was a voluntary agreement between equal parties, in which the governed had the power to hold the government accountable.
In summary, the concept of consent played different roles in the social contract of Hobbes and Locke. For Hobbes, the social contract was a one-way agreement between the governed and the government, in which the governed were required to submit to the authority of the government and had no right to dissent. In contrast, for Locke, the social contract was a mutual agreement between the governed and the government, in which both parties had obligations to each other. Locke believed that individuals had the right to dissent from the government and that the government was only legitimate if it had the consent of the governed.
It is essential to understand the differences between Hobbes and Locke’s views on the social contract and the role of consent in it. Hobbes believed that individuals were naturally inclined to act in their self-interest, which would lead to a state of war in the absence of a governing authority. Therefore, for Hobbes, the government’s role was to provide security and maintain order, and individuals were required to submit to the authority of the government for their own protection. In contrast, Locke believed that individuals were capable of governing themselves and that government was only legitimate if it had the consent of the governed. For Locke, the social contract was not just about providing security but also about protecting the natural rights of individuals.
Furthermore, Hobbes believed that the social contract was a necessary evil and that individuals had no right to dissent from the government. According to Hobbes, the social contract was a binding agreement between the governed and the government, and individuals had no right to revoke their consent. On the other hand, Locke believed that individuals had the right to dissent from the government if it failed to protect their natural rights. According to Locke, the social contract was not a binding agreement, and individuals had the power to hold the government accountable.
In conclusion, the concept of consent played a significant role in the social contract of Hobbes and Locke. For Hobbes, the social contract was a one-way agreement between the governed and the government, in which the governed had no right to dissent from the government. In contrast, for Locke, the social contract was a mutual agreement between the governed and the government, in which both parties had obligations to each other. Locke believed that individuals had the right to dissent from the government if it failed to protect their natural rights. These two philosophers had different views on the role of consent in the social contract, which reflect their different views on the nature of man and the role of government in society.
