This paper examines social contract theory as articulated by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, comparing their views on the nature of the agreement between society and government. It outlines Locke's core principles — freedom, fairness, and justice — rooted in his concept of the State of Nature, and traces their influence on the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. The paper further explores how Locke's framework governs the operations of the criminal justice system, particularly in protecting inalienable natural rights while permitting the restriction of contractual rights through due process. The analysis highlights both the enduring relevance and practical limitations of the social contract model.
The paper demonstrates applied political philosophy — taking theoretical frameworks from Hobbes and Locke and systematically applying them to real constitutional and legal institutions. Rather than treating social contract theory as purely abstract, the author traces a clear line from philosophical premises to legal outcomes, showing how Locke's principles directly informed American constitutional design.
The paper opens with a shared premise between Hobbes and Locke, then separates their views before drilling deeper into Locke alone. Three of Locke's principles (freedom, fairness, justice) are examined in turn, followed by two application sections — the Bill of Rights and the criminal justice system — and a brief synthesis conclusion. This funnel structure moves logically from theory to application.
The social contract model is based on the underlying premise that society, in pursuit of the protection of people's lives and property, enters into a compact agreement with the government — where the latter guarantees protection, and society in turn pledges to live in peace and harmony (Dooley & Paten, 2014). John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, the two main proponents of the social contract model, agree on this premise but differ significantly regarding the principles under which the contract ought to operate (Dooley & Paten, 2014).
Through his political work Leviathan, Hobbes states that the government and society both exist within the confines of the stipulated contractual agreement, but that government is the higher of the two parties and enjoys absolute sovereignty to use its power and political authority to ensure that general order prevails. In Hobbes' view, therefore, society can only follow the government's regulations in goodwill and full compliance. As long as the government is able to maintain general order, society reserves no right to replace or overthrow it, even if it has proven weak in other areas of governance.
Locke's view, on the other hand, expresses that the social contract binds both parties, but that (i) society is only bound to follow the authority's regulations as long as the authority adheres to the basic terms of the agreement, and (ii) society reserves the right to replace or overthrow the government if it repeatedly violates the contract's basic guidelines. Although Locke's view has been widely accepted, it has one major drawback: it is difficult to give a definitive meaning to what exactly constitutes a contractual violation.
Freedom: Locke's concept of freedom is embedded in his idea of the State of Nature — a state of preservation, mutual assistance, goodwill, and peace, in which all people had the right to enjoy the pleasures of nature (Elahi, 2014). Within this framework, mankind had the liberty to conduct life in any way deemed fit, free from interference. The State of Nature had no ruling authority or law-enforcement agencies to maintain law and order; people were free to pursue their endeavors, yet an element of morality still prevailed.
The Principle of Fairness: Locke identifies the protection of society's property as the core function of government. Private property is governed by the Law of Nature, which places limits on the amount of property one can own and prevents some from accumulating too much at the expense of others (Elahi, 2014). Despite the fact that nature endows humankind with an array of resources for subsistence, no one is permitted to own more than their fair share. Individuals are expected to act ethically at all times, ensuring that they do not interfere with the rights and privileges of others in the enjoyment of their own rights.
Justice: In Locke's view, property in the State of Nature was insecure because of the absence of (i) a natural power for the enforcement of natural law, (ii) an impartial judge, and (iii) established law (Elahi, 2014). Locke saw the need to create these through the formation of a government and political society. The individual would then transfer the contractual rights reserved under the State of Nature to the governing authority, retaining only those rights considered natural and inalienable — the right to liberty and estate, and the right to life (Elahi, 2014). Having been entrusted with the power to enforce these rights through the society-government contractual relationship, the ruling authority is bound to protect its citizens and punish those who transgress the law.
The social contract theory has formed the basis of constitutional agreements for centuries. The idea underlying the social contract model is that society enters into a contractual agreement with the ruling authority, transferring some of its rights in exchange for protection of life and property. This has served as the basis for constitutional development — particularly the Bill of Rights — as well as the operational framework for the criminal justice system.
You’re 66% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.