Locke and Hume: Ethics, Morality, and Social Contract Theory
This paper examines the moral and political philosophies of John Locke and David Hume, two central figures of the Enlightenment, focusing on three key concepts: the state of nature, the social contract, and the role of government. Beginning with an overview of moral philosophy and Thomas Hobbes's foundational theory of the absolutist sovereign, the paper contrasts Locke's empiricist view of natural morality and limited government with Hume's psychological account of human cooperation and his rejection of the social contract tradition. The paper concludes by tracing each thinker's lasting influence on democratic governance, classical economics, and the founding of the United States.
- Introduction: The Enlightenment and Moral Philosophy: Enlightenment context and paper's scope
- Moral Philosophy and the Social Contract Tradition: Hobbes, Plato, and foundations of social contract
- State of Nature: Locke and Hume Compared: Contrasting Locke's moral nature with Hume's psychology
- The Social Contract: Locke and Hume: Locke's limited contract versus Hume's rejection
- The Role of Government: Limited government, checks and balances, laissez-faire
- Conclusion: Lasting influence on democracy and economics
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper uses Hobbes as a shared foil for both Locke and Hume, giving the comparison a clear argumentative anchor rather than treating the two thinkers in isolation.
- It organizes the comparison thematically — state of nature, social contract, role of government — allowing the reader to track each philosopher's position across parallel categories.
- Direct quotations from primary sources (Locke's Two Treatises, Hume's Essays, and Plato's Republic) ground the analysis in the original texts.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative philosophical analysis: it introduces a shared conceptual framework (the social contract tradition beginning with Hobbes and Plato), then systematically traces how two distinct thinkers diverge within that framework. This technique allows the student to highlight not only what each philosopher believed, but why the differences matter — for example, how Hume's rejection of innate nature leads logically to his rejection of the social contract as a binding moral obligation.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with historical context (the Enlightenment) and a definition of moral philosophy, then introduces Hobbes and Plato as background for the social contract tradition. Three thematic sections follow — state of nature, social contract, and role of government — each presenting Locke's view first, then Hume's. A brief conclusion links both thinkers to their historical legacies, including the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith's classical economics.
Introduction: The Enlightenment and Moral Philosophy
The Enlightenment was a time when man, stepping out of his shackles, began to use his rational faculties and pulled himself out of the medieval pits of mysticism, in the process shoving aside the state and church authorities of the day. It was a spontaneous and diffuse movement that fed upon itself and led to the great scientific discoveries from which we all benefit today. Beliefs in natural law and universal order sprang up, which not only promoted scientific findings and material advancements, but which also gave a scientific approach to political and social issues. Foremost among the Enlightenment's thinkers were John Locke (1632–1704) and David Hume (1711–76). This paper examines their views on ethics and morality, focusing on their treatments of three key concepts: the state of nature, the social compact, and the role of government.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.