Locke vs. Hume: Consent and Political Obligation
This paper examines the competing views of John Locke and David Hume on the role of consent in creating political obligation. Locke argued that explicit, mindful consent is essential for legitimate government, and that obedience to law reflects tacit consent. Hume, by contrast, adopted a more utilitarian stance, maintaining that a government earns the allegiance of its people through effective governance rather than through any formal agreement. The paper compares their positions, explores types of consent — explicit, implicit, tacit, and normative — and concludes that while Hume raises valid practical objections, Locke's framework more accurately captures the relationship between citizens and legitimate political authority.
- Introduction: Introduces Locke, Hume, and political obligation
- Locke on Consent and Political Obligation: Locke's explicit consent theory and legitimate government
- Hume on Consent and Political Obligation: Hume's utilitarian, allegiance-based view of consent
- Comparing the Two Arguments: Core tensions between Locke and Hume's positions
- Evaluating the Stronger Position: Tacit and normative consent assessed; Locke favored
- Conclusion: Locke wins overall; Hume's caveats acknowledged
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It clearly presents each thinker's position before moving into comparison, giving the reader a firm foundation before the evaluative argument begins.
- It applies abstract philosophical concepts — tacit, explicit, and normative consent — to concrete historical examples such as the Arab Spring, making the argument accessible and grounded.
- The paper maintains a genuine evaluative stance throughout, ultimately siding with Locke while fairly acknowledging the merits of Hume's utilitarian perspective.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative philosophical analysis: it reconstructs each thinker's argument on its own terms before measuring them against each other using a shared evaluative framework. This approach — present, compare, then judge — is a standard and effective method for political philosophy essays that ask students to take and defend a position.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction defining political obligation and consent. Two body sections then present Locke's and Hume's positions respectively. A comparative section highlights the core tension between their views. The evaluative section is the longest, working through explicit, tacit, and normative consent in turn to build toward a conclusion. The conclusion restates the judgment while conceding partial credit to Hume. This five-part structure is well-suited to compare-and-contrast philosophy essays at the undergraduate level.
Introduction
In political science and philosophy, few subjects are more widely discussed and heavily debated than the foundations of political obligation. Both John Locke and David Hume proved themselves as major scholarly voices on this topic. One particular subject on which both men weighed in was the role of consent in the creation of political obligation. The positions of both men will be examined here, leading to a conclusion about which argument is more persuasive. Political obligation is, broadly speaking, the general principle that the law must be obeyed. Consent, on the other hand, is a considerably more nebulous concept, and its complexity is central to the debate between these two thinkers. While both men offer informed and erudite opinions on the role of consent in political obligation, one of them stands out more clearly than the other.
Locke on Consent and Political Obligation
Locke's view on consent is foundational and relatively direct. He speaks to a symbiotic relationship between government and the people. The people consent to the government, its laws, and its rules on the basis that the structure and function of government provides stability and order. However, Locke clearly identified limits on what political obligation and consent should or must involve. For example, he advocated for separation of powers, majority rule, and a ban on churches exercising coercive power within government. Beyond that, Locke believed that consent played a central role in making society and government work for all involved. He went so far as to say that people cannot be full members of a society unless they agree to such a principle and then act accordingly. Rather than suggesting that implicit or indirect consent is sufficient, Locke was explicit that consent must be given deliberately and mindfully. He further argued that this is a necessary condition for a government to be legitimate. After all, a government that lacks the consent of its people resembles a dictatorship or something very close to it.
Hume on Consent and Political Obligation
Hume took a markedly different approach to consent. One of his key examples concerns where a person chooses to reside. Even if the moral significance of remaining in a given place is widely understood, there are circumstances in which the choice to stay is not truly free or voluntary. Hume illustrated this with the example of a poor peasant or artisan who cannot simply relocate to another country due to restrictions on immigration, an unfamiliar language, and — most pressingly — a lack of financial resources. Hume's focus, therefore, is less on the formal act of consent and more on how people come to feel obligated through the political and social conditions that already surround them. He goes on to argue that when a government performs well and fulfills its duties, it earns the allegiance of the people for that reason alone. In Hume's view, any amount of explicit consent adds little to that equation.
Conclusion
It should not be taken from this analysis that Hume is without valid points. There are indeed utilitarian frameworks that legitimately apply to the study of government. Not everyone can have their way, and mature citizens generally understand this. Beyond that, society cannot function unless people consent and subject themselves, at least to some degree, to the rule of law and government. People therefore tend to make their views known through lawful means rather than through actions that would upset the social order. Even granting Hume's caveats, the social order could not be maintained if such balance were entirely absent. In short, Locke presents the stronger overall position, though certain elements of Hume's objections deserve a place within any comprehensive account of political obligation.
Christiano, Tom. 2017. "Authority." plato.stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authority/#TacCon.
CSUSB. 2017. Rocket.csusb.edu. http://rocket.csusb.edu/~tmoody/hume%20-of%20the%20original%20contract-.html.
Hume, David. 1748. "David Hume: Of the Original Contract." Constitution.org. http://www.constitution.org/dh/origcont.htm.
Hume, David. 2006. A Treatise of Human Nature. 1st ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Locke, John. 1993. Two Treatises of Government. 1st ed. London: Everyman.
Tuckness, Alex. 2017. "Locke's Political Philosophy." plato.stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#ConPolOblEndGov.
UTM. 2017. "Political Obligation." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/poli-obl/#SH1c.
Warrender, Howard. 2004. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes. 1st ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.