The social contract is different for both Locke and Hobbes. Locke believes that we keep hold of the right of life and obtain the right to just and impartial protection of our property. Any violation of the social contract would put him in the state of war with his fellow countrymen. Hobbes believes that if you just do what you are simply told, you are safe. You won’t be violating the social contract because you don’t have the right to rebel.
Thomas Hobbes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1.) Maybe I’m misreading this guy but does he know that both Locke and Hobbes “Social Contract” was intended to be implicit? It almost seems that he doesn’t get that… or that he’s being purposefully ignorant to prove his point about pirates.
Social Contract Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
What is Locke’s position? In Chapter Two of the , he asserts that men in the state of nature are free and equal, and at liberty to do as they wish—but only “within the bounds of the law of nature.” This limitation separates Locke from Hobbes. Hobbes had argued that freedom and equality, and the priority of individual right, meant that individuals in the state of nature could pursue their survival and interest without limitation. They had no duty to respect the rights of others. This is why the state of nature was a state of war. Locke’s claim is that individuals have a duty to respect the rights of others, even in the state of nature. The source of this duty, he says, is natural law.
John Locke (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)