4.7 Rousseau, Locke, and the Social Contract

Locke's Natural Rights

John Locke argued humans possess natural rights to life, liberty, and property even before government exists. Government forms through a social contract to protect these rights, and rules with the consent of the governed. If a government fails to protect these rights, the people have the right to revolt and replace it — a direct challenge to absolutism and divine right theory.

Rousseau's General Will

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in *The Social Contract*, argued people should submit to the general will — the collective good of the community — rather than pursue narrow self-interest. True freedom means obeying laws one helps create through direct participation. His ideas emphasized popular sovereignty and radical democracy, influencing revolutionary calls for equality and collective self-rule.

Impact on Political Thought

Both thinkers rejected absolute monarchy and divine right, instead grounding legitimate government in the consent of the people. Locke's ideas shaped constitutional government and inspired the American Declaration of Independence, while Rousseau's stress on popular sovereignty and the general will influenced the French Revolution and later democratic and nationalist movements across Europe.

Key terms

John Locke

English philosopher who argued for natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and that government requires consent of the governed.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Philosopher who wrote *The Social Contract*, emphasizing the 'general will' and popular sovereignty.

Social contract

The idea that legitimate government arises from an agreement among the people, not divine right.

General will

Rousseau's concept of the collective good of the community that should guide law and governance.

Right of revolution

Locke's belief that people may overthrow a government that fails to protect their natural rights.

Try an AP-style question

Rousseau's point here is that…

1. people are naturally born enslaved
2. institutions constrain natural freedom
3. freedom itself is too dangerous
4. kings are the ones who free subjects