The views of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke regarding the social contract are based on the idea of natural law. Natural law can be described as a universal law that everyone is subject to, regardless of their location. Both Hobbes and Locke also believed that a government was necessary to establish order and keep the peace. This is where their differences end. Starting with the same premise, both philosophers come to very different conclusions about the role of the government in the social contract.
Thomas Hobbes believed that absolute monarchy was the best form of government because humans were violent by nature. It was necessary to maintain order and peace, so people must give up their freedom to live obediently under a ruler who would protect them. According to Hobbes, people do not have the right to rebel against a government who is protecting them, no matter how unjust, because they relinquished their rights in the contract.
John Locke came to a completely different conclusion about the role of government in the contract. The primary difference between the two men is that Locke trusted human beings. He believed that people were naturally reasonable and moral, and would do the right thing. Locke also argued that people are endowed with natural rights of life, liberty, and property. According to him, the sole purpose of government was to protect these rights, and people have the right to break the contract if the government failed to do this. In fact, the people are obligated to break the contract. John Locke's ideas of natural rights was an important influence on Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.
Hobbes believed that a social contract was necessary to protect people from their own worst instincts. On the other hand, Locke believed that a social contract was necessary to protect people's natural rights. Locke believed that if government did not protect people's rights, they could reject it.
