In Thomas Hobbes's account, why do people in the state of nature have reason to leave it?
Choose an answer, then check it.
Philosophy & Ethics · Foundations
Social Contract Theory
On this page 9 sections
In 30 seconds
social contract The idea that political authority and moral obligations rest on an agreement among the people who live under them. Full entry → theory is the view that political authority and moral obligations can be understood as resting on an agreement among the people who live under them. Modern versions begin with a thought experiment: imagine life without government, in a state of nature A hypothetical condition of life without a common government, used to test what arrangements people could reasonably accept. Full entry →, then ask what arrangements people could reasonably accept. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau offered different accounts, and John Rawls revived the approach in the twentieth century. Explaining a theory is not the same as endorsing it.
Why this matters
The idea that legitimate authority rests on agreement appears whenever people ask why citizens should obey laws, what makes a government legitimate, or when resistance is justified. Social contract theory supplies a vocabulary for those questions: consent Agreement by the governed that, in social contract theory, helps explain the legitimacy of political authority. Full entry →, natural rights Rights such as life, liberty, and property that Locke held people possess independently of any particular government's laws. Full entry →, limited government A government whose powers are constrained, as in Locke's account, so that it cannot lawfully violate people's rights. Full entry →, the general will Rousseau's term for the shared will of citizens directed at the common good, formed through agreement among free and equal people. Full entry →, the original position A hypothetical standpoint in Rawls's theory in which parties choose principles without knowing their own personal characteristics. Full entry →. It also shows how a controlled thought experiment can organize political reasoning. Studying it builds the habit of separating a theory's description from a recommendation to accept it, and of noticing who is included in an agreement and who is left out. Later lessons on justice, rights, and applied ethics build directly on these concepts.
The college version
One idea, three early architects
Social contract theory is the view that persons' moral and political obligations depend on a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. The idea is old, but it takes its recognizably modern form with Thomas Hobbes, then is developed in different directions by John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Each version starts from a thought experiment: the state of nature, an imagined condition of life without a common government. The thought experiment is not an archaeological claim; it is a device for asking what people would have reason to accept.
Hobbes argued that in the state of nature, with no authority to enforce agreements, people live in constant insecurity and fear of violent death. He described such a life as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. On his account, rational people would agree to authorize a sovereign strong enough to secure peace. Hobbes's picture is contested: scholars disagree about how to read his psychology, and critics dispute the claim that life without government must be a war of all against all. The lesson presents his view as his view.
Locke agreed that people need government but disagreed about its shape. His political philosophy centers on natural rights to life, liberty, and property, which people hold independently of any particular society's laws. Government becomes legitimate through consent, which Locke treated as express in some cases and tacit in others, such as living within a government's territory. The resulting government is limited: it exists to protect rights, rests on a separation of powers, and may be resisted when it violates the rights it was meant to secure. Rousseau, for his part, argued that citizens are free through membership: by agreeing to laws they collectively author, each citizen obeys the general will, which is directed at the common good. Rousseau's claim that those who reject the general will must be forced to be free is among the most contested passages in the tradition, and it is reported here without endorsing it.
A model, not a found document
A social contract theory can be read as a claim about history: at some point, people actually agreed to form a government. It can also be read as a model: an idealized way of testing which arrangements people could reasonably accept, whether or not anyone ever signed anything. Most contemporary defenders use the hypothetical reading. The point of the exercise is public justification, showing that members of a society have reason to endorse and comply with its fundamental rules and institutions. A hypothetical agreement, however, cannot by itself bind any actual person, which is exactly the difficulty critics press.
This is why explaining a theory and endorsing it are different activities. A student can accurately report that Hobbes thought life in the state of nature would be intolerable, or that Rousseau thought freedom is realized through membership, without claiming that either picture is correct. Describing an argument fairly is a precondition for evaluating it; it is not the same as accepting it.
The approach fell out of favor after Kant and was revived in the twentieth century by John Rawls. Rawls's justice as fairness asks what principles free and equal persons would choose from an original position, a fair and impartial standpoint whose main feature is the veil of ignorance The restriction in Rawls's original position that deprives parties of knowledge about their own social position, talents, and advantages. Full entry →: the parties do not know their own personal characteristics, talents, or social position, so their choice is not skewed by advantage. Rawls's theory of justice has its own lesson in this series; this lesson names the original position only to show how the contract idea continues to work.
Objections and open questions
Social contract theory faces standard objections, and a careful lesson reports them as objections rather than settling them. The first is that the contract is a fiction. No actual historical agreement can be found, and a merely hypothetical agreement, critics say, cannot create obligations for real people who never consented. Defenders respond that the theory is not trying to document an event; it is testing which arrangements people could reasonably accept, and a model can justify without being a chronicle.
The second objection asks who consents, and when. Locke distinguished express consent from tacit consent, but critics ask whether living in a territory is really consent, and whether anyone born into a society ever gets a genuine choice. Consent that is assumed rather than given may do little justificatory work.
The third objection concerns membership. The contract's parties are people who can consent and bargain, so animals, children, and future generations are hard to fit into the model even when they are deeply affected by the arrangements chosen. Rawls himself discusses how future generations can be represented, and commentators note that the question of how much concern the parties should show toward others generally has no clear answer within the framework. Feminist and race-conscious critics have added that the model may conceal ways in which the contracting parties are assumed to be a narrow class of people. These are live criticisms; presenting them fairly is part of understanding the theory.
Eli explains
The same idea, in plain words
Explain it like I’m 10
Social contract theory is built on a question: if there were no government at all, what could people agree to? The state of nature is a thought experiment that imagines life without laws, judges, or police. Hobbes thought that condition would be so insecure that people would rationally accept a powerful sovereign. Locke agreed people need government but insisted it must protect natural rights and stay limited. Rousseau thought citizens could be free by obeying laws they give themselves through the general will. Modern theorists such as John Rawls use the same idea as a test: what rules could everyone reasonably accept? The contract is usually a way of thinking, not a document found in an archive.
Picture it like this
Think of a group of hikers who find themselves in an unfamiliar forest with no trail map. Before anyone walks, they ask what routes everyone could agree to follow, even though nobody actually signed anything. The imagined agreement tests which rules are fair enough that everyone could accept them.
Where the picture stops working
The hikers are all present and can speak for themselves. In the theory, the parties are sometimes idealized, and real people who never consented, along with animals, children, and future generations, are harder to fit into the imagined agreement.
Worked example
A campus housing cooperative has no written rules, and disputes keep arising over noise and shared spaces. A resident proposes that the group imagine starting from scratch: if no rules existed, which rules would every member be able to accept, knowing they might end up in any room? This mirrors social contract reasoning. Under a Hobbesian frame, the group emphasizes the chaos of having no rules and accepts strong enforcement. Under a Lockean frame, it tests whether rules respect members' existing rights and can be changed by consent. Under a Rawlsian frame, members choose rules without knowing their own schedules or preferences. The imagined agreement does not prove any rule is correct; it organizes the reasons people can give for accepting a rule.
Key takeaway
Social contract theory explains political authority and obligations through an agreement among people, usually a hypothetical one. Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Rawls use the idea differently, and explaining their views does not require endorsing them.
Quick check
3 questions here, of 5 in this lesson’s practice set. Answers stay hidden until you check.
Which set of ideas is most closely associated with John Locke's social contract theory?
Choose an answer, then check it.
A class imagines what rules reasonable people would choose for a society if they did not know their own social position, talents, or advantages. Which social contract idea does this scenario most directly illustrate?
Choose an answer, then check it.
Study tools & related lessonsYou’ll learn to · Common mistakes · Easily confused · Key vocabulary · Related
You’ll learn to
- Define social contract theory and the state of nature thought experiment.
- Explain Hobbes's, Locke's, and Rousseau's social contract accounts and how they differ.
- Distinguish hypothetical from historical readings of the contract, and explanation from endorsement.
- Identify Rawls's original position and veil of ignorance as a modern contractarian device.
- Analyze standard objections concerning the contract's fictional character, consent, and membership.
Common mistakes
Treating the social contract as a real historical event that everyone once signed.
Most social contract theories use the contract as a hypothetical model; even defenders disagree about how far consent must be actual.
Blending the three classic views into one theory.
Hobbes stressed security under a powerful sovereign, Locke stressed natural rights and limited government, and Rousseau stressed the general will; the views differ in important ways.
Assuming that explaining a theory means recommending it.
A lesson can describe Hobbes's or Rousseau's view accurately without endorsing it; explanation and endorsement are different activities.
Assuming the agreement automatically includes everyone affected.
Who belongs among the parties is itself contested, and critics note that animals, children, and future generations are hard to fit into consent-based accounts.
Easily confused
Hobbes vs. Locke
Hobbes argued for a sovereign strong enough to secure peace, while Locke argued for limited government that may be resisted if it violates natural rights.
Hypothetical contract vs. Historical contract
A model that tests what people could reasonably accept versus a claim that an actual agreement once occurred.
Explaining the theory vs. Endorsing the theory
Describing what Hobbes or Rousseau argued versus recommending that one accept the argument.
Key vocabulary
- social contract
- The idea that political authority and moral obligations rest on an agreement among the people who live under them.
- state of nature
- A hypothetical condition of life without a common government, used to test what arrangements people could reasonably accept.
- sovereignty
- Supreme authority within a political community; Hobbes argued it must be strong enough to secure peace.
- natural rights
- Rights such as life, liberty, and property that Locke held people possess independently of any particular government's laws.
- consent
- Agreement by the governed that, in social contract theory, helps explain the legitimacy of political authority.
- limited government
- A government whose powers are constrained, as in Locke's account, so that it cannot lawfully violate people's rights.
- general will
- Rousseau's term for the shared will of citizens directed at the common good, formed through agreement among free and equal people.
- original position
- A hypothetical standpoint in Rawls's theory in which parties choose principles without knowing their own personal characteristics.
- veil of ignorance
- The restriction in Rawls's original position that deprives parties of knowledge about their own social position, talents, and advantages.
- legitimacy
- The property of political authority that makes it justified or worthy of being obeyed, which social contract theories aim to explain.
Sources & references
- Contemporary Approaches to the Social Contract — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Locke's Political Philosophy — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Original Position — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Social Contract Theory — Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Leviathan (Thomas Hobbes, 1651) — Project Gutenberg
- Ch. 11 Introduction — Introduction to Philosophy — OpenStax, Rice University
EliExplains lessons are original prose written from the open, credible references above. See Copyright & Licensing.
Researched 2026-08-21
Educational content only. It is not medical, legal or professional advice. Found an error? Tell us.