ZULKHANADYA

1503101010197
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW/HAM
IC

SOCIAL CONTRACT FROM THOMAS HOBBES, JOHN LOCKE AND J.J. ROUSSEAU

1. SOCIAL CONTRACT OF THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679)

Thomas Hobbes is one of the leading political philosophers. He lived in corrupt time on

17th century England. Hobbes analogizes humans like watches. Humans can move and work

because humans are mechanical devices. Then, Hobbes began to think that what moved mankind

was his lust. The strongest lust in man is his desire to defend himself. (Hobbes) views humans as

machines without freedom and reason, without conscience and sense of responsibility. He built a

social order to view all citizens as a mechanism that needed to be disciplined ". then Hobbes

added humans as thinking machines.1

The natural situation, for Hobbes, is that no one can guarantee that he will not be killed or

robbed of his food or his partner. Natural state is a state of war. There is nothing that can prevent

people from killing, injuring, or robbing others. In this case working on land is not important,

this happens because it cannot be ascertained who is harvesting the crops. The main human

needs are out of natural condition.2 It was this instinct to defend life that led Hobbes to assume

that humans could be disciplined if their passions were limited. The Hobbes principle in building

the state is based on absolute power (the ruling authority over legislative, executive and judicial

powers). Assumption of state philosophy for Hobbes:

1
Suhelmi, A. (2001). Pemikiran Politik Barat: Kajian Sejarah Perkembangan Pemikiran Negara, Masyarakat, dan
Kekuasaan. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama
2
Fink, H. (2010). Filsafat Sosial. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar
 “(1) the state must be strong so that it can ensure the compliance of community members

with its regulations; and (2) the state must establish a legal order that anyone who does not

obey it will be sentenced to death”.3

For Hobbes all forms of state are good, provided that power in the country is not divided.

His power must be absolute.4 What is fair in the life of the state is determined by the state.

Justice is what is in accordance with the law, however bad it is. If the state acts contrary to the

law, citizens will lose the motivation to obey him.5 Hobbes chose male rulers over female rulers.

Hobbes looked so fanatical about social order created by the British patriarchal feudal system.6

Rousseau's and Hobbes's Social Contract Theory both classify humans in two periods,

pre-state and state. Rousseau's theory which adheres to the pactum unionist, is very contrary to

Hobbes's version with pactum subjectionist. Not to mention animal values in humans in Hobbes's

thinking did not apply to Rousseau. The ruler's concept of Hobbes's not bound by promises is

different from the agreement that binds all to Rousseau's thinking. Rousseau's ruler was only a

"servant" of the interests of the masses, whereas according to Hobbes he was very.7

2. SOCIAL CONTRACT OF JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704)

John Locke was a philosopher and thinker who was born on 1632. According to Locke in

his social contract theory states that the fulfillment of human rights and a system that guarantees

3
Magnis-Suseno, F. (1995). Kuasa dan Moral. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama
4
Suhelmi, op. cit, p.9
5
Magnis-Suseno, op. cit.
6
Fink, op.cit.
7
http://rizkisaputro.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/teori-kontrak-sosial-hobbes-locke-dan-rousseau/, accessed on
December, 28, 2018, at 08.43 o’clock
the existence of these human rights. The social contract carried out by a government must protect

the rights to have life, freedom, property and health.8

Locke argues that someone must have their own desires so that a social contract is needed

to protect people's ownership and freedom. He believes that social contracts are believed to be

the only way to lead a civilized society. Social contracts are the legitimacy of political authority

to limit the authority of each subject and the rights of every ruler of all human beings who are

naturally born free and equal. For Hobbes no one can have political power without people's

approval. This means that in essence all people's activities will be determined by the people's

agreement. However, only humans who are free (not slaves) who agree to think and act in a

sovereign government are called civil society.

Hobbes imagines that human life without a government called natural conditions and

humans is only limited by natural law. The law has various weaknesses, the only way out of this

problem is to get out of the natural state and create civil society under a sovereign government

with mutual agreement.9

Locke argue that “It may employ all that power in making laws for the community from

time to time, and executing those laws by officers of their own appointing” His idea of

government should lead to the division of the power of government to achieve all that is

desirable from the natural condition of mankind and away from the state of war in three forces:

legislative, executive and federative.10

Rousseau's and Locke's Social Contract Theory also together classify humans in two

periods, pre-state and state. Both also included human values in their thinking, not like Hobbes.

8
Wijaya, D.N. (2013). The Dynamo of Civilized Society: John Locke on Nation and Character Building.
Sunderland: MA History, University of Sunderland
9
Plamenatz, J. (1992). Man and Society: Political and Social Theories from the Middle Ages to Locke. London:
Longman
10
Tully, J. (1980). A Discourse on Property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Locke's Social Contract Theory adheres to both the pactum unionist and pactum subjectionis, for

the Rousseau to be quite a pactum unionist. The rulers according to both are equally reduced in

power, not absolute. If Locke knew people's representation, where the legislature was the

people's mandate, Rousseau wanted his own people and this was not a brilliant idea for a big

country. Locke's thinking about legislative and executive power was separated but could

influence each other, the UK said as his best example, despite the fact that it was different. Locke

and Rousseau both obscured the judicative power, but Locke's thinking had a framework for the

development of Trias Politica by Montesquieu.

3. SOCIAL CONTRACT OF J.J. ROUSSEAU (1712-1778)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an influential philosopher in the Enlightenment (18th

century). In all his writings, Rousseau is an opinion that says to return to the condition of nature.

Rousseau has a strong belief that human nature is good. This assumption is the basic principle of

his writing on ethics, where this opinion comes from his fear that he himself is an evil person.11

In Social Contract, Rousseau defines the government as an intermediary institution

formed between citizens and authorities, to guarantee their relations, assigned to implement the

law and maintain civil and political freedom. The term government is therefore limited to

executive power, so it does not cover legislative power, which is understood by this power to be

in the hands of the people. Rousseau does not have strong beliefs about which form of

government is best. In reality, because the government is under the will of the authorities, it does

not matter to him whether it is democracy or monarchy as long as it is in line with the needs and

environment of the people it serves. According to Rousseau, the state is a product of social

11
Tonny P. Situmorang, “Pandangan Rousseau tentang Negara sebagai Kehendak Umum”, dalam Jurnal Fakultas
Ilmu Sosial dan Politik, digital library Universitas Sumatera Utara, 2014, h. 02
agreements. Individuals in the community agreed to give up some of their rights, freedoms and

powers to a common power. This shared power is then given the name of the state.12

Rousseau has a different view in looking at the state with other social group contractual

agreements. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke depart from the same presupposition which is an

opinion that by establishing a state it means giving up some rights to the state. In addition,

Hobbes and Locke also basically have the same view of the state as an institution that deals with

citizens who have established it, therefore the state needs to be controlled. Whereas Rousseau in

his work departs from the identity between the state and the people, then on the one hand

individuals release themselves entirely to the state.13

 Similarities and Differences

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and J.J. Rousseau was a thinker who existed in the age of

enlightenment. The three of them talked about social contracts. Among the three thinkers,

Thomas Hobbes was born first and wrote about the concept of social contracts. Hobbes was born

in England in 1588 and died in 1679. While Locke lived (1632-1704) half a century younger

than Hobbes. Likewise Rousseau (1712-1778) lived in a different century and the country was

different. The three are thinkers who focus on the theory of social contracts that form the basis of

a state.

The similarities contained in the thinking about the theory of social contracts was

initiated by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and J.J. Rousseau has an awareness to stop the natural

state in order to realize a regular and peaceful life. For this reason, it is necessary to have an

institution that regulates the life order which in this case is called a state. The state exists because

12
https://id.scribd.com/doc/62140441/Tabel-Priodisasi-Pemikiran-Filsafat-Politik-Barat, accessed on December, 28,
2018, at 09.40 o’clock
13
https://grahafilsafat.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/pemikiran-rousseau.pdf, accessed on December, 28, 2018, at
10.11 o’clock
of collective agreements carried out by the people to stop the course of the natural conditions that

continue to occur.14

Social contracts will give birth to a form of state. In the concept of a social contract

between Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have something in common, that is, departing from

thinking about the pre-state human condition (natural state). However, the natural state according

to the three is different. According to Hobbes, the natural state is like being in a state of war.

Always feel scared when there are other humans who have more ownership than themselves.

Whereas according to Locke, natural conditions have been arranged patterns and orderly natural

law because humans have a mind that can determine what is right what is wrong in relationships

among others. Unlike the two, Rousseau argued that there were no fights. It is precisely in this

natural condition that people unite and cooperate with each other.

After the stop of natural conditions, the shape of the state is created. The idea of the

shape of the state itself is different. Hobbes has his own ideal form, namely an "Absolute

Monarchy" in which a state is led by a king who has unlimited power. In this condition, the

people submit to the state and give all their rights. as written in his book "Leviathan". In contrast

to Hobbes's state concept, Locke possesses the ideal form of the state, namely the "Constitutional

Monarchy" provides guarantees regarding the rights and freedoms of basic freedoms of humans

(life, liberty, healthy and property). Whereas Rousseau said that a legitimate country is a state in

the form of "Republic". In this case Rousseau also emphasizes what is called "general will" in

determining the course of government.15

 Table of Thought Social Contracts of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and J.J. Rousseau

14
https://id.scribd.com/document/373995148/Tokoh-Teori-Perjanjian-Masyarakat-Thomas-Hobbes, accessed on
December, 28, 2018, at 07.50 o’clock
15
Schmandt, Henry J, Filsafat Politik (Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar, 2005), p. 396
Differences Thomas Hobbes John Locke J.J. Rousseau
Natural Humans are basically Humans from birth have Humans whose
condition greedy, evil, and tend natural rights. In principle origins are good have
to like to hurt others humans are good, but since been damaged by
(homo homini lupus = the existence of human rights civilization, resulting
humans are analogous began to be evil. in chaos.
to wolves). Here
humans do not have
any rights.
Factum Only know the factum Get to know factum unionist Only know the factum
Unionist and subjectionis, where all and subjectionist. Factum unionis, where the
Factum individuals promise to unionist, where individuals government has no
Subjectionist surrender all their with other individuals hold a contractual basis. The
natural rights to public agreement to form a government as the
someone / group of country. Factum leader of the
people appointed to subjectionist, where organization is formed
regulate their lives. individuals with the above by the sovereign and
agreement, require other is its representatives.
individuals to obey the state The sovereign is the
formed with the most votes. people through their
The formed country cannot general will.
take natural human rights.
Position of The people surrender Individuals do not give up all The people have full
natural rights all their rights, so that their natural rights and the authority to determine
after the the king has absolute authorities have the duty to themselves, the state
agreement power after the guarantee and respect these has no right to place
people's rights are natural rights. obligations /
handed over to him. restrictions on
people's rights.
The nature of Absolute monarchy Constitutional monarchy Sovereign democracy
government
formed after
the agreement