Social contract theory and political authority: QCE Philosophy and Reason
“Evaluate social contract theories of political authority, including the accounts of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau”
Social contract theory justifies the state's authority by appeal to a hypothetical agreement among rational people leaving a state of nature. Hobbes sees the state of nature as a war of all against all and justifies a near-absolute sovereign. Locke sees a state of nature governed by natural law with rights to life, liberty and property, justifying limited government and a right of revolution. Rousseau sees natural freedom corrupted by society and justifies obedience to the general will. Rawls revives the contract with a veil of ignorance. Key objections deny that any real consent was given (Hume) and that the classic contract excluded women (Pateman).
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
QCAA wants you to evaluate the central question of political philosophy: what, if anything, justifies the state's authority over us? Social contract theory answers that legitimate authority rests on the agreement of the governed. You need the structure of the argument (a state of nature, a problem, a contract, a resulting authority) and the contrasting versions given by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, with criticisms. This anchors Unit 4 IA2, IA3 and the external exam.
The answer
The structure of a contract argument
Social contract theories share a method. They imagine a state of nature (life without government), argue that it contains problems serious enough to make rational people agree to be governed, and conclude that the state's authority is justified by that hypothetical agreement. The differences between theorists come from how grim they think the state of nature is and how much power they think people would rationally hand over.
Thomas Hobbes (1588 to 1679)
In Leviathan (1651), Hobbes paints the bleakest state of nature: a "war of all against all" in which life is, in his words, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Because resources are scarce and people roughly equal in their capacity to harm one another, no one is safe. Rational self-interested individuals therefore agree to transfer almost all their rights to an absolute sovereign (the "Leviathan") whose overwhelming power keeps the peace. For Hobbes, even tyranny is preferable to anarchy, so the sovereign's authority is near-absolute and rebellion is almost never justified.
John Locke (1632 to 1704)
In the Second Treatise of Government (1689), Locke offers a more optimistic picture. His state of nature is governed by a law of nature grounded in reason, giving each person natural rights to life, liberty and property. The problem is not constant war but the lack of an impartial judge and reliable enforcement. People therefore form government to protect their pre-existing rights, granting it only limited, conditional authority. If a government violates those rights, it breaks the trust and the people retain a right of revolution. Locke's account shaped liberal constitutionalism and the American Declaration of Independence.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712 to 1778)
In The Social Contract (1762), Rousseau famously opens that man is born free yet everywhere in chains. His state of nature is comparatively peaceful; it is society and private property that corrupt. The contract creates a community in which each person submits to the general will (the collective will aimed at the common good) and thereby remains free, because they obey laws they have a share in making. Rousseau's theory points toward popular sovereignty and democracy, though critics worry the "general will" can be used to override individual dissent.
Rawls and the modern revival
In the twentieth century, John Rawls revived contract theory in A Theory of Justice (1971). His parties choose principles of justice behind a veil of ignorance, not knowing their own place in society, which forces impartiality. This is a hypothetical contract used to justify principles, not a historical event.
Strengths and objections
Strengths: the contract explains political obligation in terms of consent rather than mere force; it makes authority answerable to the governed; and it grounds limits on state power.
Standard objections:
- The historical objection: no actual contract was ever signed, so why are we bound? Defenders reply the contract is hypothetical or expressed through tacit consent.
- The tacit consent objection (raised by David Hume): mere residence in a country is not genuine consent if leaving is not a real option.
- The exclusion objection: classic contracts assumed a narrow set of free, propertied men; feminist critics such as Carole Pateman argue the contract masks a "sexual contract" that subordinated women.
Hobbes sees the state of nature as a war of all against all and justifies an almost absolute sovereign. Locke sees a state governed by natural law with rights to life, liberty and property, justifying limited government and a right of revolution. Rousseau sees natural freedom corrupted by society, justifying obedience to the general will. The grimmer the state of nature, the more power the contract surrenders.
- Treating all three theorists as identical
- They reach opposite conclusions about how much authority is justified. Always specify which contract you mean.
- Reading the contract as a literal historical event
- For Locke, Rousseau and especially Rawls, the contract is a normative device for testing legitimacy, not a dated signing.
- Confusing Hobbes's sovereign with democracy
- Hobbes justifies an absolute sovereign; it is Locke and Rousseau who move toward limited and popular government.
- Ignoring the consent objections
- Strong answers raise Hume's tacit-consent criticism and Pateman's exclusion criticism rather than only praising the theory.
Try this
Q1. Outline Hobbes's view of the state of nature and the authority it justifies. [4 marks]
- Cue. War of all against all; rational people transfer rights to an absolute sovereign for security.
Q2. Explain how Locke's contract differs from Hobbes's regarding the limits of government. [4 marks]
- Cue. Locke grounds natural rights to life, liberty and property; government is limited and conditional, with a right of revolution if it breaches trust.
Q3. State one objection to social contract theory and a possible reply. [3 marks]
- Cue. No actual contract was signed (Hume); reply that consent is tacit or the contract is hypothetical and normative.
Exam-style questions
Questions in the style of QCAA exam questions on this dot point, each with a worked answer. They are written by ExamExplained unless tagged "Past paper"; the year shows the paper a question is modelled on.
PracticeAnalyse and evaluate claims and arguments in your two selected political philosophies to determine the extent to which they are based on reliable assumptions concerning human nature. Refer to an idea or ideas in Stimulus 1 in the stimulus book to support your response.Show worked answer →
The 2022 stimulus offered competing views of human nature (for example Rousseau's "man is born free", Aristotle's "social animal", and claims that humans are innately selfish, cooperative or fair). This is the full 50 mark extended response (800 to 1000 words), marked across four criteria. Assumptions about human nature sit at the heart of contract theory, since the imagined state of nature is built from them.
- Criterion 1 (Defining, using and explaining)
- State a thesis on how far your two selected philosophies rest on reliable assumptions about human nature, then explain those assumptions accurately. For example, a Hobbesian view assumes self-interested, fearful agents, while a more Lockean or Rousseauian view assumes reason or natural sociability.
- Criterion 2 (Interpreting and analysing)
- Deconstruct each philosophy's argument, showing how its view of human nature drives its conclusions about authority and order. Identify premises and conclusions precisely and link them to a stimulus idea.
- Criterion 3 (Organising, synthesising and evaluating)
- Evaluate whether each assumption is reliable, using evidence and criteria such as empirical plausibility and internal consistency, then reach a justified verdict on the extent claim.
- Criterion 4 (Creating and communicating)
- Sustain one central thesis through logically sequenced paragraphs in fluent analytical-essay style, using the stimulus discerningly.