4247566
Title: The Flaws in Hobbesian Social Contract Theory: A Critique
Introduction
Thomas Hobbes in his work presents the social contract theory as a valid justification for a political
society. While it is a compelling argument built upon his theory of the social contract, Hobbes
asserts that individuals enter into a social contract to establish a sovereign authority, relinquishing
some freedoms in exchange for security and stability; however, after a careful and an in-depth
engagement with Hobbes’ concept of the social contract and it's reasoning, it is evident that there
are various aspects that could be potentially seen as assumptive, and not valid. This paper will be
elaborating and dissecting Hobbes’ account of the social contract, and how and why it lacks
viability in specific areas.
Need for an Absolute Sovereign
In order to adequately address the implausible components of Hobbes’ argument, to which one can
compartmentalize the positives of absolute sovereignty, the logic for obedience to the sovereign
itself, and the necessity of undivided sovereignty. One must first begin with the understanding as
to why Hobbes believes his viewpoint is correct and more importantly, necessary. Hobbes’ basis
for the social contract is the belief that a life without government leads to the alternative ideal
labeled as a "state of nature." One can view a state of nature as a state of perpetual conflict and
insecurity. Hobbes follows on by stating that an absence of a sovereign authority to which would
subsequently enforce laws and mediate conflict, will lead individuals to act in purely selfish ways;
therefore, causing a "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes.) This state of nature
consists of fear, instability, and violence, it works against the objective of a society to secure a
prosperous life. The sovereign, through obtaining supreme authority, ensures peace by enforcing
laws and punishing offenders. We can therefore see the perspective in Hobbess' view in that by
centralizing power, individuals are prevented from resorting to violence and subsequently ensuring
the protection of life, liberty, and property.
According to Hobbes, individuals constantly give their natural rights to a sovereign authority,
forming a social contract. Hobbes states that life under an absolute sovereign is a better alternative
than to the unstable state of nature as it ensures security and order.
1 | Page
Title: The Flaws in Hobbesian Social Contract Theory: A Critique
Introduction
Thomas Hobbes in his work presents the social contract theory as a valid justification for a political
society. While it is a compelling argument built upon his theory of the social contract, Hobbes
asserts that individuals enter into a social contract to establish a sovereign authority, relinquishing
some freedoms in exchange for security and stability; however, after a careful and an in-depth
engagement with Hobbes’ concept of the social contract and it's reasoning, it is evident that there
are various aspects that could be potentially seen as assumptive, and not valid. This paper will be
elaborating and dissecting Hobbes’ account of the social contract, and how and why it lacks
viability in specific areas.
Need for an Absolute Sovereign
In order to adequately address the implausible components of Hobbes’ argument, to which one can
compartmentalize the positives of absolute sovereignty, the logic for obedience to the sovereign
itself, and the necessity of undivided sovereignty. One must first begin with the understanding as
to why Hobbes believes his viewpoint is correct and more importantly, necessary. Hobbes’ basis
for the social contract is the belief that a life without government leads to the alternative ideal
labeled as a "state of nature." One can view a state of nature as a state of perpetual conflict and
insecurity. Hobbes follows on by stating that an absence of a sovereign authority to which would
subsequently enforce laws and mediate conflict, will lead individuals to act in purely selfish ways;
therefore, causing a "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes.) This state of nature
consists of fear, instability, and violence, it works against the objective of a society to secure a
prosperous life. The sovereign, through obtaining supreme authority, ensures peace by enforcing
laws and punishing offenders. We can therefore see the perspective in Hobbess' view in that by
centralizing power, individuals are prevented from resorting to violence and subsequently ensuring
the protection of life, liberty, and property.
According to Hobbes, individuals constantly give their natural rights to a sovereign authority,
forming a social contract. Hobbes states that life under an absolute sovereign is a better alternative
than to the unstable state of nature as it ensures security and order.
1 | Page
