Session 5-The Social Contract-Consent and Obligation

“Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains”- Jean Jacques Rousseau 

The dynamics of the social contract theory provide valuable insight into the nature of human beings and the foundation and origins of the state and society as we know it.  Locke and Hobbes, the original proponents of the social contact assert that human beings need to establish a mutually consensual civil government in order to avoid the “State of Nature” and therefore war and conflict.

However, there are a number of questions that can be raised regarding the theory, specifically regarding political obligation and consent. Firstly, Locke and Hobbes seem to differ in their definition regarding the extent of political obligation. While Hobbes argues that citizens are obligated to obey authority under any circumstances, Locke proclaims that inhabitants can rebel against a tyrannical sovereign. Which philosophical standpoint is then more valid and conducive to maintain social order? Secondly, both of these theories seem to imply tacit consent. As David Humes points out, this is a problem. To say that a person gives their consent to obey laws just because they were born in a particular country is the same as saying that someone has to obey a ship’s captain even though they were dragged on to the ship in their sleep.

Moreover, the basic assumption of the social contract theory is that human beings need to arrive at a set of shared rules that reflect their mutual interests and protect their rights. However it is difficult to come up these rules in modern pluralistic societies, where citizens are fundamentally different and have diverse needs and desires.

Therefore, even though the social contract theory does provide the basis for an ideal society on paper, there are some issues that prevent it from doing so in reality.