Before We Start
The single shared premise underlying all three theories
Despite their dramatically different conclusions, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all agree on one foundational premise: legitimate government rests on the consent of the governed. This single shared commitment is what genuinely unifies them as a single "tradition," even as their specific conclusions diverge sharply from that common starting point.
💡 Where the Divergence Actually Originates
The three theories' dramatically different conclusions trace back to their different starting assumptions about human nature and the state of nature — Hobbes's pessimism, Locke's more moderate view, and Rousseau's optimism each generate a correspondingly different theory of what the social contract should actually establish.
Mnemonic
The three theories, synthesized side by side
Hobbes
Rational self-interest → absolute sovereign
Rational self-interest drives people to accept an absolute sovereign specifically to escape the state of nature's chaos — the most authority-favoring conclusion of the three.
Locke
Pre-existing rights → conditional, revocable government
Government protects pre-existing natural rights — and can be overthrown if it fails at this specific function. A meaningfully more limited, conditional conclusion than Hobbes's.
Rousseau
Natural goodness → the general will as common good
The general will represents the community's genuine common good — the most democratic and collectivist conclusion of the three, reflecting Rousseau's optimistic starting premise about human nature.
💊 A useful way to organize all three theories along a single spectrum: from Hobbes (most authority-favoring, justifying absolute sovereignty) through Locke (moderate, conditional legitimacy with a right to revolt) to Rousseau (most democratic/collectivist, emphasizing the general will) — tracing a clear progression from pessimistic to optimistic assumptions about human nature, and correspondingly from more authoritarian to more democratic political conclusions.
⚖️ Applying the Synthesis — Predicting Each Theorist's Response to the Same Scenario
A government proposes expanding its own emergency powers significantly, arguing this expansion is necessary to maintain social order during a period of genuine instability.
Predict Hobbes's Likely Response
Given his prioritization of order and security above nearly all else, Hobbes would likely be relatively sympathetic to expanded government authority during genuine instability — his framework consistently favors strong, even absolute, authority as the remedy for the chaos he considers humanity's default natural condition. This reflects his foundational premise directly.
Predict Locke's and Rousseau's Contrasting Responses
Locke would likely scrutinize this expansion specifically against whether it still serves the core function of protecting natural rights — an expansion that itself threatens those rights would, in his framework, undermine rather than support legitimate authority. Rousseau would likely ask whether this expansion genuinely reflects the community's authentic general will, or merely serves a narrower government interest — a genuinely different diagnostic question than either Hobbes's or Locke's. All three thinkers, starting from the same "consent of the governed" premise, would reach genuinely different practical conclusions about this same scenario.
📌 Exam Application
Social contract synthesis questions test the ability to compare all three theorists together:
Shared premise: "What single premise do Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all share?" → Legitimate government rests on the consent of the governed.
Comparative spectrum: "Which of the three theorists is most authority-favoring, and which is most democratic/collectivist?" → Hobbes is most authority-favoring; Rousseau is most democratic/collectivist. Locke sits in a moderate, conditional middle position.
Divergence source: "Where does the three theories' divergence in conclusions ultimately originate?" → Their different starting assumptions about human nature and the state of nature.
⚠️ The Trap — Treating "Social Contract Theory" as a Single, Unified Position
Because all three thinkers are grouped under the single umbrella term "social contract tradition," it's easy to treat their views as more similar than they actually are, or to attribute one theorist's specific conclusion to "social contract theory" generally.
The safeguard: Always specify WHICH theorist's version of the social contract you're referencing — the shared label describes a common starting premise, not a single unified political conclusion.
✓ Quick Self-Test
Answer before checking:
1. What single premise unifies Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau as a "tradition"?
2. What conclusion does Hobbes reach from this shared premise?
3. What conclusion does Locke reach?
4. What conclusion does Rousseau reach?
Answers:
1. Legitimate government rests on the consent of the governed.
2. Rational self-interest drives people to accept an absolute sovereign to escape the state of nature.
3. Government protects pre-existing natural rights and can be overthrown if it fails.
4. The general will represents the community's genuine common good.
Next Lesson
Rawls's Veil of Ignorance
→