top of page
Distinguishing Locke and Kant's Social Contract: Property and Freedom
The Social Contract captures the relationship between consent to govern by the individual, and the extent to which the State exercises authority
Article by Jasper Wiggins
Image: Hermitage Museum St Petersburg
The Social Contract of Locke and Kant
Australian Political Analysis Review - Open Source Independent Education
The Social Contract captures the relationship between consent to govern by the individual, and the extent to which the State exercises authority. Both Kant and Locke examine conditional express and tacit consent and how it compares with obliged moral duty. Kant's view towards the role of the State differs from Locke's notion that authority to establish a society is granted by the consent of the majority, rather than constitution. Ultimately, Kant's morally regulative approach challenges Locke, asserting that the empowerment of constitution requires the incorporation of popular obedience, to uphold enforceable legal authority.
Obligation, Consent and Constitutionalism
Obligation is the binding component of the Social Contract. In Locke’s view, consent is subject to "agreement with other men", placing himself under obligation to announce his allegiance expressly, or have it implied tacitly through the "possession” of society’s benefits (Locke, 1999). Inherent private ownership thus, binds man to society. However, the jurisdiction of State is limited to "man’s land." Therefore, man can renounce his consent at any time, and retreat into nature, for his consent "begins and ends” with his utilisation of the law.
By contrast, Kant believes that the "moral duty" of citizens is to obey the law (Kant, 1999). Obedience in Kant’s view is conducive to the empowerment of the State, its institutions, and the constitution. Kant’s dismissiveness of nature suggests a rejection of Locke’s vigilante-type moral, as open revolution would contradict the operation of an impartial judiciary (Flikschuh, 2008). By implication, Kant articulates "an authority to coerce" by the State, reducing man’s autonomy to respond. In Fellman’s view, coercive power is “desired” by man, for it strengthens an institutionalised rather than natural rule of law, that is enforceable and empowered to resolve injustices (Fellman, 1973).
Determination of State: Majority Will Vs Supremacy of Right
Determination of State in Locke’s view relies on the agreement of individuals to form a ‘capacity’ to act as a majority (Locke, 1999). God’s laws thus, "empower" the politic to enact "positive laws" representative of the majority. Therefore, power vested in State is viewed from a "bottom-up" perspective, wherefore, capacity is skewed toward the citizens who can hypothetically "form a new society" if their contract is violated (Poole, 2017). Thus, the State’s mercy lies at the will of the majority
By contrast, Kant argues that determining majority view is "impossible" (Kant, 1999). Instead, it is the "legislators’ moral obligation" to enact "just laws.” Power is thus, conferred in a top-down model, as the State bares onus in self-determination.[1] Moreover, Kant argues that legislators will “always” enact reflective laws because a "rightful state" is true when "harmony exists" between rights and happiness. Happiness in Kant’s interpretation is pleasure, an antithetical moral that is “indeterminate”, conflicting with the rationality of law-making. (Hills, 2006) Enabling man to "choose his own happiness" rather than having it legislated on his behalf, Kant infers legislative limitation.
Conclusion
At the heart of the Social Contract Theory, Kant and Locke’s reasoning highlights the contentious relationship between individual and State. Fundamentally, Locke places liberty of the individual in a freer moving but hypothetical position, lacking institutional basis. By contrast, Kant’s moral obedience contributes to the cohesion of society, as authority is vested in a constitution that precedes all law. Ultimately, to a greater extent, Kant prioritises legal-rational authority over Locke’s natural laws, underscoring checks and balances that operate conductively to protecting rights over the whim of man.
Bibliography
Locke, J. (1999) ‘Express and Tacit Consent’, in M. Rosen and J. Wolff (eds.) Political thought. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Pages 59-62
Kant, I. (1999) ‘The Hypothetical Contract’, in M. Rosen and J. Wolff (eds.) Political thought. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Pages 64-65
Fellman, D. (1973) ‘Constitutionalism’ in P Wiener, eds. Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Vol 1. (Virginia, USA: University of Virginia Library 1973). https://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaBook/tei/DicHist1.xml;chunk.id=dv1-61;toc.depth=1;toc.id=dv1-61;brand=default;query=Dictionary%20of%20the%20History%20of%20Ideas#1
Hills, A. (2006). ‘Kant on Happiness and Reason.’ History of Philosophy Quarterly, 23(3), 243–261. Illinois, USA: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27745060 Page 250
Flikschuh, K. (2008). ‘Reason, Right, and Revolution: Kant and Locke.’ Philosophy & Public Affairs, 36(4), 375–404. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40212831 Page 381
Poole, T. ‘Locke on the Federative’ (December 11, 2017). London School of Economics Legal Studies Working Paper No. 22/2017. London, UK: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3086173 Page 5
The Social Contract captures the relationship between consent to govern by the individual, and the extent to which the State exercises authority. Both Kant and Locke examine conditional express and tacit consent and how it compares with obliged moral duty. Kant's view towards the role of the State differs from Locke's notion that authority to establish a society is granted by the consent of the majority, rather than constitution. Ultimately, Kant's morally regulative approach challenges Locke, asserting that the empowerment of constitution requires the incorporation of popular obedience, to uphold enforceable legal authority.
Article by Jasper Wiggins
Article by Jasper Wiggins
Article by Jasper Wiggins
Why Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’ Is Relevant Today
Marxism and Ontological Bias
Alexis de Tocqueville on Federalism After Washington
Explore More on Ideology
Explore More On Ideology
bottom of page