Questions: Social Contract Theory and Political Obligation

Question 1

Locke argues that by remaining in a territory and using its roads and institutions, a person has implicitly consented to the government's authority. Which of the following is the strongest objection to this 'tacit consent' argument?

• A. People don't actually sign contracts with governments, so consent cannot be real
• B. Residence is not always a meaningful choice — the poor and marginalized often cannot simply leave
• C. Locke's argument only applies to people who own property
• D. Tacit consent cannot override explicit disagreement with specific laws

Answer: (B)

The deepest objection to Locke's tacit consent argument is that it treats residence as a voluntary act when it often is not. Emigration requires resources, legal status, and opportunity. For many people — especially the poor and historically marginalized — 'staying means consenting' is not a meaningful choice. This critique motivates later theorists like Rawls to shift from asking what people *did* consent to (tacit or explicit) to asking what they *would* consent to under fair conditions.

Question 2

A political activist argues that a law is illegitimate because it violates fundamental rights that individuals possessed before any government existed — rights that government was created specifically to protect. Which social contract theorist's framework most directly underwrites this argument?

• A. Hobbes — because he prioritizes sovereign authority to maintain order
• B. Locke — because he grounds pre-political natural rights that limit and can dissolve government
• C. Rousseau — because he emphasizes collective self-governance through the general will
• D. Rawls — because his veil of ignorance produces principles that constrain legislation

Answer: (B)

Locke's social contract begins from the premise that natural rights to life, liberty, and property exist before government. Individuals create government only to protect these pre-existing rights, and they retain the right to dissolve a government that violates them. This Lockean logic is the direct ancestor of arguments about constitutional rights, natural law, and the right of revolution.

Question 3

All major social contract theorists agree that political obligation is binding because it is, in some sense, self-imposed — grounded in consent (actual or hypothetical) rather than mere force.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

Despite their many disagreements about the state of nature and the form of legitimate government, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Rawls share this structural claim: obedience to law is morally different from submission to a conqueror because it reflects a form of agreement. You are obligated to follow the law not because someone conquered you, but because you — or your rational counterpart in the thought experiment — consented to those terms. This is what distinguishes legitimate authority from mere power.

Question 4

Social contract theory holds that there was a real historical moment when individuals gathered, deliberated, and explicitly agreed to form a government — and this founding event is what makes current laws binding.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

The 'social contract' is a thought experiment, not a historical event. No such founding meeting occurred. The theory asks a hypothetical question: what political arrangement would rational individuals agree to if they were choosing from scratch? The answer to that hypothetical is what justifies real political authority — not because anyone actually signed anything, but because legitimate government is the kind of arrangement that rational people would agree to. Conflating the thought experiment with history is one of the most common misconceptions about the theory.

Question 5

What is the 'state of nature' thought experiment, and why is it central to social contract theory's justification of political authority?

Model answer: The state of nature is a hypothetical scenario imagining what human life would be like before any government or political institutions existed. Social contract theorists use it to identify the problems that government is meant to solve and the terms rational individuals would accept to escape those problems. Hobbes's brutal state of nature justifies strong sovereign power; Locke's benign state of nature justifies limited government that protects pre-existing rights; Rousseau's peaceful state of nature makes social inequality the problem government must address. The thought experiment is central because it derives political obligation from rational self-interest: if government solves the problems of the state of nature on terms you would have accepted, you are bound by it even without explicit agreement.

The state of nature functions as a baseline against which to evaluate political arrangements. It asks: what would life be like without this government? The answer identifies what government is for — and sets the limits on what kind of government is legitimate. This is why different theorists' different descriptions of the state of nature lead to dramatically different political conclusions.