Abstract

The social contract tradition of political legitimacy has a long and complex history. John Rawls believed himself to be working in this tradition of Locke, Rousseau and Kant, but not that of Hobbes whose Leviathan, he remarks, “raises special problems.” Rawls never specifies what these problems are but there are indeed very serious problems with Hobbes’ political theory. I argue that Hobbes’ theory is an ideology fashioned in a chaotic social environment where self-preservation was precarious at best. His theory is based on his belief that there were only two alternatives for political order given the human condition as he saw it at the time, chaos or absolute power. This false dichotomy was one that Rawls and most other theorists did not accept. Hobbes' theory conflicts with Rawls' conception of rights, the purpose of government, and the nature of the person. Hobbes' theory is a form of ethical foundationalism and is what Rawls calls a comprehensive doctrine unacceptable in Rawls' political liberalism.