Alex Guzzetta

PHL 223
Tutorial 2, Question A

Revolution and the Social Contract

4/8/2006

Living in the 21st century, the right for a people to rebel against an 'unjust' government is seen as
a fundamental feature of the relationship between a government and the people it serves. However, this
belief is founded in rather modern beliefs, reinforced by the radical political and economic change that
occurred in the 20th century. In fact, these modern ideas of government interaction can trace their roots
to the concept of an contractual agreement between government and nation, called the 'Social
Contract', the basics of which were laid in the 17th and early 18th centuries. This contract, more than a
formal declaration of power, is a conditional that requires the sovereign to uphold certain rights and
'ends' that the people have decided upon in return for fealty and the acquisition of their right to govern.
Groups of individuals enter into a social contract to avoid a 'State of Nature;' a position of complete
political freedom at the cost of no communal infrastructure. Modern political institutions tend to favor
the ideas presented in John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, which describes a system of
government that is dependent on the continual will of the people for its existence, yet the discussion
regarding the right of rebellion still remains controversial. Questions such as 'to what limit should we
tolerate a government before rebelling' are notoriously subjective, oftentimes promoted by discontented
minorities, or based on ignorance and error. Further, the safety that society grants seems to give the
members that society a superior position from which to judge their fate, bringing into question the
severity of their mistreatment. From theses questions, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes presents a
theory of government in which the people are unable to dissolve the bonds that hold them within
government, independent of the efficiency of the ruler(s), and argues that rebellion against a recognized
Authority is unjust and impossible. It is the purpose of this paper to analyze the arguments that Locke
makes in favor of such a society, and further, to determine if they sufficiently answer the objections
against such an action that are presented in Hobbes' Leviathan. To that end, various excerpts and
arguments from these two works will be presented that are seen to contain the views discussed above.

In Leviathan, Hobbes presents a theory of absolute government that culminates in a entity

known as the 'sovereign;' who derives his power from a compact between participating individuals.
Prior to entering the compact, Man exists in a 'state of Nature,' the essence of which is deadly
competition or war. In this state:
...Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to
keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre;...In such a
condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and
consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that
may be imported by the Sea; no commodious building...not Arts, no Letters, no Society,
and which is worst of all continual fear, and the danger of violent death, the life of man
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. (Hobbes, pps. 185-186)
Only by entering into a covenant to create a sovereign can man escape this destiny, and in
doing so, the participants agree to a contract whose nature would preclude them (in various ways) from
justly rebelling against this society. In his chapter titled Of Common-WealthHobbes outlines the
nature of the sovereign as deriving his power from the communal agreement of men, such that they
agree within themselves to give over their Will to the Sovereign, which they then select. Once this
decision has been made, dissent is literally impossible, since the minority of dissenters has agreed to
the compact regardless of outcome and must follow the majority or be destroyed 1. Even if later
decisions of that Leviathan are not to their agreement, there is little the subjects are allowed to do in
protest; their Will and political freedom given to each other and then imbued into the entity of the
Sovereign. In consequence, Hobbes believes, each action that the Sovereign preforms is an expression
of each person's will, and thus ultimately their own action; to rebel against the Sovereign is illogical,
and ultimately destructive, since by rebelling, you violate covenant between all individuals, and attack
the collective will for your misfortune:
1 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan,(Hackett Pub. Indiana, 1994) pp.112

Fourthly, because every subject is by this institution author of all the actions and
judgments of the sovereign instituted, it follows that , whatever he doth, it can be no
injury to any of his subjects, nor ought he to be by any of them accused of injustice.
...Fifthly, and consequently to that which was said last, no man that hath sovereign
power can justly be put to death, or otherwise in any manner by his subjects punished.
For seeing every subject is the author of the actions of his sovereign, he punish another
for the actions committed by himself.(Hobbes, pps. 112-113)
In addition, Hobbes considers another point derived, from his fear of Civil unrest and internal
War. Closely tied with his views on the horror of war and the absolute power of the monarch, Hobbes
claims that the protection and benefits Sovereign power provides is always greater than the unrest that
follows it. Rebellion occurs when people fail to consider the fear and absences of Society that is
inherent in a Masterless nation, and are driven to violate the compact that they made with their Ruler,
resulting in the State of Nature that would exist
But a man may here object that the condition of subjects is very miserable, as being
obnoxious to the lusts and other irregular passions of him or them that have so
unlimited power in their hands. And, commonly, that they live under a monarch think it
the fault of the monarchy...not considering that the estate of Men can never be without
come incommodity or other, and that the greatest that in any form of government can
possibly happen to the people in general is scarce sensible, in respect of the miseries
and horrible calamities that accompany a civil war...(Hobbes, pp.117)
In direct contrast, John Locke approaches the social contract from a much more egalitarian
position, supported in part by his differing belief regarding Man's behavior in the State of Nature.
Rather than exist in a ceaseless, seething mass of individual competition, Locke regards the state of
nature as each man existing within his own realm, acting as Judge against those who would do injustice
to him, and offering assistance to his fellow man. However, this state can easily devolve into a state of

War, the characteristics of which are similar to Hobbes view of a lawless nation of Men. To prevent a
State of War from occurring, Man may enter communal society, sacrificing not his will but limiting his
rights and freedoms for the mutual benefit and to preserve their 'property' defined here as their lives,
liberties, and estates.(Locke, pp.66) If that government fails in its duty to provide for those aims, or
begins to enact legislation or procedures that are against the general will and the good of all men then
it is not only allowed but obligated of every man to remove that government from existence, its
function having been lost. Further, against the declaration that the dissolution of government results in
an anarchy that would be far worse than organized society, Locke presents a view based in the
consequences of his political assumptions. Rather than servility from combined debasement, the
contract between the government and its subjects is a binding agreement for both parties, and as such
holds its responsible for its actions:
But though men, when they enter into society, give up the equality, liberty, and
executive power they had in the state of nature, into the hands of society, to be so far
disposed of by the legislative, as the good of the society shall require; yet it being only
with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and
property...can never be supposed to extend further than the common good, but is obliged
to to secure every one's property...(Locke, pp.68)
By forming a society before the creation of a government, and basing the limits of its powers
by its protection and advancement of the rights of all men, the government takes on a much more
utilitarian role, serving as a political tool that is useful only because it serves a purpose. If it does not
serve that purpose then it risks falling into Tyranny. If the government becomes tyrannical, Locke
postulates, then it follows that the price of tyranny is a state of nature, for if the government no longer
serves the will of the people, then it exists as a superior power that is impressing its will upon society
unjustly and thus is liable for removal, since it has produced a result that is identical to a state
supposedly eliminated by the institution of government. If, as Hobbes might argue, the above situation

does not equate to the complete chaos that is seen to be War, and thus does not really persuade against
security, Locke responds in much the same way one might imagine Benjamin Franklin would have:
But if they, who say, it lays a foundation for rebellion, mean that it may occasion civil
wars, or intestine boils, to tell the people that they are absolved from obedience when
illegal attempts are made upon their liberties and properties, ...that such a doctrine is
not allowed, being so destructive to the peace of the world: they may as well say, upon
the same ground, that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates because this may
occasion disorder or bloodshed...if the innocent, honest man must quietly quit all he
has, for peace sake, to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it considered,
what a kind of peace there will be in the world, which consists of violence and rapine;
and which is to be maintained only for the benefit of robbers and
oppressors(Locke,115)
The Good of all men, including the protection of their 'property' is to be considered in all
actions, and thus, if a system no longer allows for the growth or protection of these values, it results in
an evil more horrible than the death and confusion that would result from open defiance. Though a state
of War and injustice is a prime reason for the creation of a government, fear of its emergence should
not be an argument for the promotion of an unjust system or silent consent.
In determining if Locke has accurately answered the objections that Hobbes made in his
argument, the difficulty seems to begin within their conception of government. While Hobbes clearly
sees the possession of power as compete and, by definition, necessarily complete, he determines that
the Sovereign is above the law and recrimination. If this is the case, however, it seems then that the
nature of government, ostensibly based in the continuation of human life and Industry, can be brought
to change without the consent of the governed, or, against the direct will of them; a consequence that
seems immediately unacceptable. In comparison, Locke views the contract as an actionable
arrangement that would grant the individuals the right to a government that would both: enact a Law,

such that people may live together based on shared respect of certain prohibitions, and further, be
beholden to its members for its continued existence. Besides an obvious affinity for a system that
would allow greater freedom, the system that Locke proposes seems to have a particular problem, one
that was also attributed to Hobbes before: that of ignorance and error. As with constituents that exist
today, the average subject may have no, or even a mistaken idea of what is the most efficient or Just
system of government. If the current government, despite its good intentions and beneficial policy,
cannot convince its populace that its working in their interest, what should occur? It seems a crime to
impose unpopular rule, yet if we believe Locke, man does not have the Natural right to do himself
harm; should he then be forced into a system that he cannot see the benefit of? The answer to this
question is certainly controversial, but if one believes in the inherent individual sovereignty of intellect,
then any repression of will is unbearable. Despite the physical hardship that could result from the
dissolution of the system (if indeed any need occur), to force someone to behave in a way that they do
not enjoy, nor believe in, seems to deny them a large part of what they would call the 'benefit' of a
system; since part of what is looked for is satisfaction in the way that things are done. Further, despite
the hypothetical that was created earlier, history has seen that oligarchys act in favor of themselves, and
few others. Locke's response sufficiently responds to the objection made, but on the condition that one
accepts the fundamental values that Locke lists, and the dedication that he assumes to one's political
awareness, though it is possible to extrapolate the following claim that would apply to most societies:
'If the system of political authority no longer preforms its function, as proscribed by a majority of the
individuals that are called its 'subjects,' then it in fact is not longer a valid authority for those subjects
and they have right and reason to create a system that does so.' Objections to this formulation, besides
those based on the rights of a minority,(which shall not be discussed here) seem to invariably stem from
either an assumption of superior values (the objection to which is displayed above) or a seemingly
destructive or sadistic affinity for stability at the cost of knowledge and experience of life.