ABSTRACT
This essaycritically examines the theory of social contract as seen and conceived by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Also, it posits to tackle certain questions like: a) Does the theory of social contract in Thomas Hobbes share any similarity with that of John Locke? b) Do they contrast at any point at all? c) Can it be said that the social contract theory according to the two philosophers under consideration is completely the same?
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke also saw it from different perspectives to a certain level. Hobbes, the first to give its full exposition and defence postulates that social contract is an agreement to which the people surrender their will, freedom, and power to an absolute sovereign called the Leviathan. Thomas Hobbes saw the contract as one in which the citizens relinquish their freedom inherent in the state of nature to an absolute sovereign. For John Locke, who came after Hobbes, conceived social contract to exist wherever some citizens united into one body having a common established law and judicature to appeal to with authority to decide controversies between them and punish offenders. The problem consequently hinges in the confusion and difference inherent in trying to understand the two philosophers’ theory of social contract.
The method of this research work shall be expository and analytical. I intend to expose the different views of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on social contract. Since social contract theory does not mean exactly the same thing to both of them. After the exposition of their thoughts, a comparison and a contrast and critical evaluation will follow.
