Abstract
Contrast the following two political communities: one is governed by rulers who have not at any point elicited their subjects’ consent to their rulership; the other is governed by rulers who would not be in power were it not for the consent of those who are subject to their laws. According to social contract theory, the former rulers are illegitimate, precisely insofar as they do not govern with the consent of the governed, whereas the latter are legitimate, precisely insofar as they govern with such consent. The thought that the consent of the governed is a necessary condition for political legitimacy is the defining feature of social contract theory. This article first gives a thematic overview of classical social contract theory as articulated in three seminal works: Hobbes’ Leviathan , Locke's Second Treatise of Government , and Rousseau's The Social Contract . It then sketches out the tradition's legacy in contemporary political philosophy, notably in the works of John Rawls.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
