a much more inhabitable place. His reason for this is that we have natural laws which are also
referred to as god-given laws. Locke recognises that there would still be the need for some sort of
governing body, but in contrast to Hobbes theory, individuals are morally equal and would person-
ally be able to enforce punishments for bad behaviour. One criticism here would be that individuals
could have the tendency to be biased. Another obvious criticism is that Locke’s state of nature’ is
dependent on a lot of religious connotations. However, you have to take in to consideration that it
was written in a period when this would be a lot more relevant.
David Hume heavily criticised Hobbes and Lockes versions of the social contract. Firstly he
points out that there had never been a situation called the state of nature’ and that nobody had
consented to a social contract, mainly because the social contract was purely hypothetical. The
following quote explains nicely Hume’s thoughts about why we agree to the state:
“Men, therefore, are bound to obey the magistrates, only because they promise to it: and if they
had not given their word, either expressively or tacitly, to preserve allegiance, it would never have
become a part of their moral duties
2
”
What Hume is saying here is that we are born into a society and we don’t need a contract theory
because our belief is that the government is in our best interests and therefore the people support its
continuation. This is interesting because if we know that it is in our best interests to be ruled by the
state then this could suggest that our moral obligations would not stand without it. Although Hume
was hopeful about human nature and felt that people can exhibit qualities such as faithfulness and
politeness which are not directly related to self-development or happiness.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau famously wrote The Social Contract which central aim was to explain
the sources and limits of legitimate authority. Rousseau believes that we are not sacrificing freedom
to adhere to the state because so much freedom can be gained from the state. He stated we might
add that man acquires the civil society, moral freedom, which alone makes man a master of himself;
while obedience to a law one prescribes to oneself is freedom
3
.
This is a slightly different concept because he is saying here that a state or ruling body needn’t
be oppressive, in fact quite the opposite because he explains our moral obligations can only flour-
ish. In spite of this Rousseau doesn’t make any assumptions about human beings having any
superior moral values without a so called social contract. He does however explain that humans
are naturally compassionate and do not like to see others come to any harm or distress.
This is not only an interesting notion, but maybe a convincing one. It could be argued that not
all moral actions are as a result of law and order, but because we care and genuinely want to do
the right thing. There are plenty of examples of people wanting to do good’, such as charities and
philanthropy, or quite simply helping an elderly gentleman who has fallen. Obviously, it would
be unrealistic and naive to assume that everyone is a do-gooder and even without a government
everyone would be civilised. Also, this view of compassion is a huge contrast to Thomas Hobbes
ideas about everyone being out for themselves. Maybe it could be said that there is some truth in
both arguments. This belief that compassion plays a big part in human nature is also reflected in
Rousseau’s Social Contract theory, which advocates that people would effortlessly co-operate as
part of a society.
In conclusion it would be difficult to determine whether all our moral obligations could be
justified by a social contract theory. As mentioned above there are acts of kindness seen everyday
2
Hume (2000) A Treatise of Human Nature’ In Baillie J, Hume on Morality, Chapter 6, PP 184
3
Rousseau, J-J (2004) The Social Contract. London, Penguin Great Ideas. Chapter 8, PP 21
5