SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY: A HOBBESIAN APPROACH

BY

UCHENU, AUGUSTINE EKENE

DI/ 359

Being an Essay Submitted to the Department of Philosophy, Dominican Institute of

Philosophy and Theology, Ibadan, in Affliation with the University of Ibadan, N
igeria, in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Award of Bachelor of A
rts (B.A.) in Philosophy.

IBADAN

JUNE, 2010.

CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that this Long Essay titled: SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY: A HOBBES
IAN APPROACH, is submitted to the Department of Philosophy, Dominican Institute
of Philosophy and Theology Ibadan, in fulfillment for the requirements for the A
ward of Bachelor of Arts Degree in Philosophy from the University of Ibadan, is
an original and insightful research work, carried out by AUGUSTINE EKENE UCHENU
and was supervised and approved by Rev. Fr. (Dr.) Faneye, Benedict, OP.
MODERATOR:
Date……………………. Sign…………………….
Rev. Fr. Faneye, Benedict, O. P.
Head of Philosophy Department,
Dominican Institute of Philosophy
And Theology, Ibadan, Nigeria.

DEDICATION
This Research work is dedicated to my Heavenly Mediator, Jesus and to the Queen
of my life, Mother Thrice Admirable, the Queen and Victress of Schoenstatt. To m
y Earthly parents, Mr. Clement Uchenu and Mrs. Ify Uchenu and to all who keep mu
tual agreement in the world, especially in Nigeria.
OUTLINE
Page Title……………………………………………………………………..i
Certification……………………………………………………….………….ii
Dedication…………………………………………………………………...iii
Outline……………………………………………………….……………....iv
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………….vi
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….viii

CHAPTER ONE: A SURVEY OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY….1

1.1 An Overview of Hobbes’ Life…………………………………....1
1.2 Background of Hobbes’ Political philosophy…………………….4
1.3 Emergence of Contract Theory…………………………………...7
1.4 Meaning of Social Contract Theory………….…………………17

CHAPTER TWO: THOMAS HOBBES’ SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY..20

2.1 The State of Nature……………………………………………...20
2.2 Man in the Original State of Nature…………………………….22
2.3 Hobbes’ Contract Theory……………………………………….25
2.4 The Sovereign and Power…………………………………….…27

CHAPTER THREE: THE LAW OF THE STATE………………………....30

3.1 What is Law?................................................................
................31
3.2 Overview of Natural Law………………………………..……...33
3.3 Effects of the Civil Laws on the Contract Theory……………....37
3.4 The Rule of Justice……………………………………………...39

CHAPTER FOUR: RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE IN NIGERIA……….……...42

4.1 Survey of Religious Violence in Nigeria……………….……….43
4.2 Relevance of Social Contract to Religious Violence in Nigeria...…49

Critique of the Hobbes’ Social Contract Theory….…………….52

CONCLUSION………………………………………………….56

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………….......59

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to acknowledge and appreciate gently the efforts of all those who in one
way or the other have helped me to accomplish this rigorous research work.
I want to begin by thanking the Almighty God and Blessed Virgin Mary for continu
ous divine assistance throughout the period of writing this essay. The next per
son I wish to appreciate, is my amiable Moderator, Rev. Fr. Faneye, Benedict who
heartily accepted to moderate this work and took the pains, to guide me in the
course of this research work, despite his very tight schedule and nature of his
job. I will not forget to mention the wonderful and extraordinary contributions
of Rev. Fr. Benjamin Kwagba to the success of this essay. Fr., if I have another
opportunity I would love to come for the ‘second missionary journey’, I thank y
ou for your kind gestures.
It is my joy to express my sincere gratitude to Fr. Alfred Kistler, ISCH, the Su
perior of Schoenstatt Fathers’ Community in Nigeria, who voluntarily guided me f
or my complete B. A Programme. I am also proud of all the Schoenstatt students w
ho supported me in one way or the other, especially those who supplied me with n
ecessary materials, ideas and helpful insights. I would not forget to mention Br
o. Stanley Ifeanyichukwu Obijiaku who helped me to make corrections in this work
before submission. My deepest gratitude goes to my friends and co-operators: E
mmanuel Nwabuo, Cajetan Okeke, Ekweariri Martin, Olowojesiku Kemi, Olowojesiku O
pe, Uzor Chidimma, Princess Obioma, Wunmi Okechukwu Okpara, Agor Paschal, Tony O
nyeuwoma, Ani Pedro, Okonkwo Edochie, Bob Dondon, Henry Dike, Raymond Odo, Ogbon
na Patrick, Okechukwu Jude (Ifite – Ogwari), and to the rest of my philosophy br
others who helped me in no little ways.
With great joy I remember my family, (my Mother, Father, Brothers, Sisters, Uncl
es, Cousins, Nephews, Aunts, and Nieces) Nwaogo Uchenu, Nwaodu Uchenu, Ekweozor
Uchenu, Thomas Uchenu, Xtopher Uchenu, Udebunu Uchenu, Ngozi Uchenu, Victoria Or
iaku Uchenu, Nonso Uchenu, Chioma Uchenu, Ukamaka Uchenu, Nkiru Uchenu, Chidimma
Uchenu, Izu Uchenu, Emeka Uchenu, Ifeoma Uchenu, Ukoamaka Uchenu, Helen Uchenu,
Cynthia Uloma Uchenu, Jude Uchenu, Chinasa Uchenu, whose care and love serve as
inspiration for this project.
Special thanks to my beloved group brothers and friends: Oforka Victory, Nwangum
a Mike, Gbadamosi Ray, Enekwechi Nwike, Pepe Avule, Chilobe Damian (De Bishop) a
nd Ochie Bernard ( Ochie Power). I would not forget to say thanks to my indomita
ble Prof. and friend, Fr. Justin Obuka and to my generous brother and friend D
r. Tony Uchenu for the encouragement and support they offered to me throughout m
y philosophical studies. I owe a lot to all of you.
Finally, I appreciate all the Dominican Institute’s Lecturers that have added to
my knowledge, helped me in articulating and delivering my ideas within these fo
ur years programme. May God bless and reward you abundantly and lead you to impa
ct more positive knowledge to the upcoming students.
INTRODUCTION
Statement of Problem
It is in the nature of man to enjoy peace and he tries as much as possible to ha
ve this peace . But since all men desire this peace, the only way to achieve it
is by respecting each other, in all spheres of life. With this respect for each
other, peace and security are assured. The presence of security and the conseque
nt peace is a sign of a healthy habitable state.
But looking at our society today, security of life is no more and peace has left
its arena. Even where we all should search for peace (Religion) has become a ba
ttle arena . The average Nigerian has known the ravages of either war or violenc
e. The civil war of 1967 – 1970, ethnic clashes, religious conflicts, political
assassinations and menaces of robbery have characterized our nation as a scene o
f ‘political and religious mockery’ . The leaders are corrupt and sometimes tyra
nnical. Even the led are no less corrupt than the leaders. In fact, lawlessness
is the right word to qualify this situation of Nigeria. The rule of law is no lo
nger respected. Man is now afraid of his fellow man. Trust has been betrayed on
many occasions and some are of the opinion that the best way to defend oneself i
n this warfront called Nigeria is to offend each other’s and be ready to defend
oneself at the expense of others. As a result of this, our country has been thic
kly coated with human blood .
In this climate of fear, man has not been able to actualize himself. Th
ere is underdevelopment as foreign investors are scared of the Nigerian situatio
n. “We are culturally dead, economically dry, socially corrupt, religiously fana
tical and politically chaotic” . We, Nigerians are plagued with ignorance as our
institutions are shut for long periods of time in the name of religious crises.
All this leads to fear in the Nigerian society. It is the concern of this essa
y that this problem be solved.
Aim, Scope and Methodology
To this extent, this essay would consider the usefulness of Hobbes’ Social Contr
act Theory to Religious Crises in Nigeria. Since Hobbes proposes that man lived
in a state of fear and lawlessness in the original state of nature and the only
way to deal with man’s problem is to elect a Leviathan with an absolute power, t
o rule with the social contract terms and principles, therefore we could use the
same method to solve the problems of Nigerian state of fear and lawlessness pos
ed by crises.
One of the renowned English Philosophers, Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) is
chosen to be the lead philosopher here because he is well known for his politic
al thought. His vision of the world is very striking because he hypothetically t
raced the origin of human society and political leadership in the States.
Our aim in this essay will not be to change the basic nature of Hobbes’
social contract theory but to attempt an exposition of it. This essay is not onl
y meant for academic purposes but also to the practicality of maintaining peace
by proffering solutions to religious crises which bury peace in our society, bec
ause Nigeria is a multi-religious entity, once there is a religious crisis it mo
tivates other crises. It will be within the exposition of the religious crises f
rom the transition from military rule to civilian rule from 1999 to 2010 in Nige
ria.
This essay is divided into four chapters. Chapter one makes a survey of
the social contract theory. Here we will first explore briefly the life of Thoma
s Hobbes, starting from his early life, studies, works and his last days on eart
h. We will explore the background of Hobbes’ political philosophy, the emergence
of the social contract theory and its meaning. This will extend our discussion
to expound the views of the two contemporaries of Hobbes: John Locke and Roussea
u on the ideas of social contract. In chapter two, we shall be occupied with Hob
bes’ social contract theory; to expose his discourse on the original state of na
ture and how it led to the proper contract theory. For a good examination of the
notion of the social contract theory, we shall look at the Sovereign or Leviath
an and its management of power. The sovereign or Leviathan has an absolute power
according to Hobbes and can punish any citizen that disobeys the contract.
In chapter three, we shall examine the concept of the law of the state.
Our primary task here is to expose what the law should be, achieve for the citiz
ens and how the Leviathan should apply the law to rule individuals in the civil
state. We shall be discussing natural law concisely in the light of Hobbes and i
ts relevance in administering the rule of justice in the state. Natural law is i
mportant to this work because Hobbes tells us that in the state of nature each p
erson has a right (liberty) guided by reason to use all things and this reason m
akes man to do things he deemed fit for the preservation of his life .
According to Hobbes, the absence of jurisdiction is one of the causes of
the predicaments in the state of nature. In our discourse on law, we will exami
ne the rule of justice, expounding the real act of justice and what it means to
act unjustly. Hobbes asserts that the idea of justice was not in the consciousne
ss of people in the state of nature. However, in this new artificial state, ther
e is law, consequently treatment will be surely meted out to those who may contr
adict this law.
Chapter four examines religious violence in Nigeria. The basic aim of th
is chapter is to apply Hobbes’ social contract theory as a means to solving reli
gious conflicts in Nigeria. This chapter also makes a critical evaluation of Hob
bes’ social contract theory.
CHAPTER ONE
A SURVEY OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
1.1 Brief Overview of Hobbes’ Life
Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of the modern political philosophy flourished
between 1588 - 1679, in the west of England. He always regarded himself as bein
g timid because he remarked, “my mother gave birth to twins: Fear and I are twin
s because she was frightened by the approach of the Spanish Armada” . Thomas Hob
bes was educated properly at Malmesbury where he became an extraordinary scholar
in Greek and Latin, and at Oxford where he upheld his deep interest in classica
l literature and became familiar with the ongoing theological controversies of t
he time. Hobbes also did elementary logic and Aristotelian physics.
In 1608, he became a tutor in the Devonshire family and later worked as
a secretary to the son of William Cavendish. This family maintained a close rela
tionship with Hobbes throughout his stay in London. In these circumstances, he c
ame to know some of the ‘prestigious politicians of the time and literary men of
his days’ of whom were Francis Bacon and Ben Johnson. In 1610, Hobbes was in Fr
ance and Italy on a visit, getting a first glimpse of the intellectual life of t
he continent and returning with a decision to become a scholar. The next eightee
n years which he spent mostly at Chatsworth were the germinating period of his f
uture intellectual interests and activities.
At this period, Hobbes had turned to the classics to really gain an unde
rstanding of his life and of philosophy, which he presumed could not be attained
in the schools. He decided to translate Thucydides into English after a period
of reading and reflection. According to Hobart R.E., “like Thucydides, Hobbes be
lieves that history was written for instruction, and he wished to instruct his c
ountrymen on the dangers of democracy” . In 1628, when Hobbes published his tran
slation, Charles I had been on the throne for three years and already a loggerhe
ads with Sir John Eliot and John Pym. Hobbes’ translation was the first attempt
to bring his people to their senses and made them a way of the tragedy that they
courted: that of civil war, from which proceeded slaughter, solitude and the wa
nt of all things.
Hobbes accepted to teach the son of Sir Gervase Clinton, with whom he st
ayed for three years. This period was marked by Hobbes’ discovery of the intelle
ctual world of Mathematics and Geometry, a world so important to the continental
philosophers of his time. Meanwhile, he had been totally ignorant of this world
. The discovery greatly renewed his mind, gave him new zeal and direction to hi
s philosophical reflections. This marked the domination of Hobbes’ mind by phil
osophy.
Hobbes came in contact with Galileo near Florence on his last European t
our (1634 – 1637), and above all, with Mersenne in Paris. A catholic priest, Mar
in Mersenne was the clearing house for both philosophical and scientific corresp
ondence among critical minds of that time. “Through his meditation, Descartes in
vited Hobbes to read a manuscript copy of the Meditations and to submit objectio
ns, which Descartes printed together with his own replies” . Now Hobbes was read
y to render his own system, the outlines of which he set forth in The Elements o
f Law. Although, he composed this work (Human Nature and on the Body Politic) in
1640, it was not published until 1650. He thought it wise to abandon England ou
t of fear, then being governed by the long parliament. He fled to France in 1640
and tarried there for eleven years, as a Mathematics tutor to the future Charle
s II. While in Paris, he began his work on a set of three related works, entitle
d Element of Philosophy, the three parts of which were to deal with ‘body in gen
eral, human nature and the social polity’ (man, the citizen and the commonwealth
). On the course of his stay in Paris, he also penned his work in political phil
osophy, the Leviathan in 1651.
Around 1652, Hobbes’ return to England as James Collins expressed it was
solely
… hastened by the opposition raised among Catholics and Presbyterians abroad to
some violent sections on religion in Leviathan, which was circulated in manuscri
pt form. Early in 1652, Hobbes made his peace with the commonwealth and took up
residence again in England. After the restoration, Charles II bore him no resent
ment and even paid him a pension, referring to Hobbes indulgently as the bear wh
om everyone wants to bait.
The old man, Hobbes published the first two parts of his writings: On Body (1655
) and On Man (1658) of his trilogy. Thereafter, Hobbes spent his intellectual po
wer in numerous polemics. He contended against Bishop Brainhall over human freed
om and did his best to convince the learned world (in opposition to the Mathemat
ician, John Wallis) that he had discovered how to square the circle and duplicat
e the cube.
At eighty-four, he wrote his Autobiography in Latin verse. In 1675, he l
eft London for Chatsworth and Hardwick. In 1679, when he learnt of his incurable
ailment, he exclaimed: “I shall be glad to find a hole to creep out of the worl
d” . Then at the age of Ninety-one, Hobbes died in 1679.
1.2 BACKGROUND OF HOBBES’ POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
It is generally believed that every child is a product of his own society and ag
e; thus, the socio-cultural activities of every society informs his behaviour an
d thought. In other words, a child’s experiences generally shape his mentality.
Thomas Hobbes is certainly not different, for in his political thoughts, one can
easily capture the period he flourished and see in them the socio-cultural infl
uences that informed the way he saw things in nature. For a clear and systematic
understanding of Hobbes’s political philosophy, we shall objectively refresh ou
r thoughts again on the period of his existence and clearly evaluate without cer
tain erroneous biases especially concerning social contract, which he generally
considered as the basis for the establishment of the civil society.
Thomas Hobbes lived between the 16th and the 17th centuries, when the
whole Europe was under chaotic politics. His political background could be chara
cterized by tumult, insecurity and instability which eventually led to the Briti
sh civil war. The man, Hobbes, the son of a vicar of Westport was born two month
s prematurely in the spring period, marked by the nearing of Spanish Armada to t
he English coast. His mother’s shock at the approaching flight was said to be th
e major cause of Hobbes’ early birth. This could be the stand of those who sugg
est that “fear” is the second nature of Hobbes. This has greatly influenced his
political ambitions and doctrines as his views could be said to have been founde
d on fear.
Hobbes’ experienced a monarchical system of government where the power o
f legislation solely belonged to the sovereign, the monarch. At this period, his
society was under political unrest, for it was the time when the parliament was
becoming unprecedentedly bolder in its challenge and attack on the royal power.
History recorded that Cromwell’s parliamentary forces were victorious meanwhile
the monarchy failed because of the tension between it and the parliament which
resulted to the civil war. This deadly clash in the system of government in Brit
ain during the time of Hobbes influenced his political ideology. No wonder he be
lieved in the absolute power of the monarch, to whom everybody must obey.
Furthermore, as someone who was born into, monarchical system of governm
ent, Hobbes had a deep love for this system of governance. Consequently, Hobbes
praises two important ways of attaining power by the sovereign – voluntarily or
coercively. In this, he acknowledges that sovereign power can be attained by nat
ural force, like a man constrains his children to submit to his own idea or by w
ar, subdue his enemies at will. On the other hand, men could agree to peacefully
submit as an assembly. This will later be called a political commonwealth or co
mmonwealth by institution and the former, that is, a commonwealth by acquisition
.
One may say that monarch is the only form of government that is natural
whereas others are produced by man. Political monarchy is an offshoot of the fam
ily system of livelihood and an official relationship that is so entitled by peo
ple for peace and unity. In order to guard and protect the subjects through the
promulgation and enforcement of laws, and so that the situations that culminate
d to the civil strife could be completely avoided, Hobbes had to propound absolu
tism. This implies that absolutism is the precondition to the kind of societal s
ystem proposed by Hobbes. This of course remains the bedrock of peace and harmon
y in the proposed Hobbesian civil society. The Hobbesian civil society as we sha
ll see later would be ruled or governed by the commonwealth – whose power is unc
hecked and absolute, at least most of the time.
1.3 EMERGENCE OF SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
It is taken that Thomas Hobbes developed this theory in the 16th century; howeve
r, there are other philosophers who pointed or referred implicitly to this theor
y before him. These philosophers spoke about the contract as the basis for estab
lishment of the political system. Philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Hooker and
even Machiavelli hinted on social contract as the foundation for order, law, ju
stice and government. In a nutshell, the contract theory did not start with Thom
as Hobbes, though he developed it and popularized it through his writings. Thoug
h different philosophers wrote on the contract theory, it does not imply that th
ere are substantial changes in their ideas; the substance of the contract theory
still remains, that men freely gave out their rights to form an organized state
, as a result of agreement entered into by men who originally had no governmenta
l organization.
To sum it up, this means that “the state was created by men, a product o
f social contract” . This assertion was made by Plato through Glaucon, that the
city (Polis) arose due to the failure of man in providing all his basic needs. T
hus, he needed the contributions of others. In the Republic, Plato writes: “The
men, being in want of many things gather into one settlement, many partners and
helpers to satisfy their diverse needs” . Plato’s idea here implies ‘contract an
d an agreement’, since the purpose of coming together is to help each other so t
hat this polis will be sustained, avoiding injustice and embarrassment, and enco
uraging total and mutual respect for individual rights. This contract binding th
e two parties together, whether the contract was formally entered into or was as
a result of habit or custom, as in a case where a citizen in another country is
bound, in so far as he stays there, to respect the laws of that nation. The non
-citizen must also be respected by the nation’s laws that protect human rights.
The social contract theories came into lime light during and after the m
iddle ages which involved (the governmental contract’ and ‘social contract). The
former refers to the mutual agreement between a government and the people in th
e State, whereas the latter refers to the built institution of a political socie
ty, a civil society or the body politic by means of a solid agreement among the
individuals. The governmental contract theory’s idea was largely employed by the
core defenders of popular liberties in the middle ages to resist vehemently the
claims of rulers to absolute dominion over their respective subjects. Thus, Man
egold, around 11th century developed the great idea that a king could be deposed
when he had violated the agreement according to which he was chosen, that is, i
nability to maintain peace and order in the state, or misuse of power on the sub
jects. People are justified to depose any king that governs unjustly.
The two forms of social contract theory, governmental contract and socia
l contract (individuals) have distinctive features, which distinguishes them. In
the governmental contract, there is already in existence with its citizens. Thi
s form cannot account for the origin of the state, society and government. Besid
es, the government initiated this contract for the sake of all – for the mutual
coexistence between the two parties, the government and the people. Above all, t
he basic benefit of this contract is peace in the society.
The individual social contract unlike the governmental contract is the o
rigin of the government in the society for Hobbes. Social contract theorists tra
ced the origin of this contract to man in the original state of nature, a state
of no society, a state of lawlessness, characterized by Hobbes as a state of “wa
r of every man against every man and life here is poor, nasty, brutish and short
” . Man became the greatest enemy to his own species. Full of insecurity and fea
r – these formed every action taken by man. Amidst this struggle for survival in
the natural state of nature, man possessed natural freedom and reason, man soug
ht for a way of peace, voluntarily entered into a contract with others to come t
ogether to form a common will, a society, a civil state with a chosen one that w
ould promulgate and implement laws, maintain peace and order for the parties inv
olved. This social contract theory will be discoursed at length in the subseque
nt chapters.
However, these two forms of contract theory have at least one thing in c
ommon; each of them does not coerce people’s will to enter into the contract but
voluntarily entered by those involved. In other words, the contract connotes fr
ee giving up of basic individual rights which if I hold to myself will never pro
mote peaceful coexistence and justice in the society. This is clearly seen in ou
r different communities, for example, we see that when some men come together to
form an organized group, political organization, peer group or age grade, the c
onstituting members do not always hold on to individual worth or rights, but rat
her they sacrifice them so as to ensure the achievement of their agreed common g
oal.
In the thoughts of some, Richard Hooker is the first to explicitly speak
about the ‘social contract’ in his book, The Law of Ecclesiastical Polity. He h
eld that men in the original state of nature were subject to the laws of nature
but recognized the need to wave by all grievances, which came up in the interact
ion among them. “This is done by growing into composition and agreement among th
emselves, by ordaining some kind of public government and by yielding themselves
subject thereunto” . The constitution of a civil society therefore, rests on hu
man consent (agreement between them), on the assumption that there were no thoug
hts that one man can be lord and judge over others.
Bertrand Russell, in his philosophical reflection sees some doctrines of
the Epicureans as a kind of social contract theory. In the History of Western P
hilosophy, he writes: “justices, … consist in so acting as not to have occasion
to fear other men’s resentment – a view which leads to a doctrine of the origin
of social contract” . Russell’s point here is for there to be an organized peac
eful society, whereby people live without fear – a free kind of life, where ther
e is a mutual understanding and proper undertaking so that people will not fear
one another. In a nutshell, the Epicureans assert that justice is a product of a
collective function or responsibility of the citizens of a city.
This statement calls to mind the words of Johannes Althusius written by
Copleston:
all societies depend on contract, at least in the form of tacit agreement, and t
he state is one of the types of society … the government rests on agreement or c
ontract, and the sovereign has a trust to fulfil. Though he distinguishes differ
ent kinds of societies – family, the collegium or cooperation, the local communi
ty, the province or the state – the formation of any definite community rests up
on an agreement or contract whereby human beings agree to form an association or
community for their common good in respect of specified purposes.
The point here is basically that each community corresponds to a definite human
need, so that each contract is entered into for the common good, even if it is b
y two people, as we see in the care of a husband and wife. One could posit from
the above that man is a social being, desires a society where peace and order pr
evail. In other words, man is born with natural inclination for mutual relation
with others.
 Although Hobbes was a social contract theorist, there were other contrac
t theorists after Hobbes, like John Locke and Rousseau. These were his fellow En
glishmen who flourished around 17th century Europe. These two philosophers like
their predecessor, believed that social contract is the origin of an organized s
tate, society or government.
The starting point of John Locke’s political theory, just like his prede
cessor, Hobbes is the state of nature, his magnus opus, Two Treatises of Governm
ent, started as that of Hobbes, on the state of nature. Unlike Hobbes, Locke pre
sented the state of nature as a state of order, where all men were equal and liv
ed in separate units. In this state, everyone was aware of certain limitations
of the individual will, especially the two basic limitations of the right to pro
perty which everyone had and the right to punishment of offenders of natural law
s, vested in each individual. This implied that some natural laws existed accord
ing to Locke, and there was a natural reason which operated in that environment.
Everyone who consulted that natural reason would judge correctly. This natural
law tells everyone that “all men are equal and independent; no one ought to har
m or deny another of health and liberty of possessions. Locke held that man was
capable of abandoning the natural reason because, he becomes irrational sometim
es. For him, this abandonment would lead to a state of chaos like that of Hobbes
’ state; life would become very difficult to all.
The state of nature according to John Locke had its own institutions.
The state of nature has its social and legalistic institutions and these institu
tions operate and give men some form of natural rights. These natural rights are
rights to freedom, life and property. But the most basic is right to property b
ecause everyone has the right to acquire property. Locke argues that if anyone m
ixes his labour with any form of natural object, then that final product becomes
his, and nobody can take it away from him .
The major setback in this society is man’s unreasonableness; it is for t
his that proper society, is formed, for the preservation of property. His social
contract could be described as a means of protecting property because the contr
act is entered in order to guard individual right to own property.
Lockean social contract was not totally in line with Hobbes, in other wo
rds, Locke did not advocate for an absolute power of the sovereign like Hobbes,
rather the contract was to be between the sovereign and citizens. The people had
the right of disobedience (civil disobedience) if their natural rights were not
well protected. Locke seemed to take this theory as a historical fact, and not
just a mere fiction or myth. However, Locke did not realize that there is no his
torical foundation to support his assertion.
In his book, Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau disagrees with Hobbe
s that the state of nature was a chaotic, anarchical, strife and war. Instead, h
e held that the state of nature was a state of peace, innocence . He did not pai
nt the state of nature as dark as presented by Hobbes. He believed that man in t
he natural state was neither moral nor immoral but a happy being because these c
oncepts are part of civilization. Man was not alone, in isolation, but the type
of relationship that existed here was loose.
There was a communal ownership of property in this state of nature. This
peaceful and happy state of affairs in the state of nature was heavily disturbe
d when one man declared a piece of land as his own private property. Dipo Irele
in his book, Introduction to Political Philosophy, traced this problem from the
egoistic tendency of man. According to Irele:
Egoism has a double origin – one relating to individual psychology and the other
to social relationships, and both lead to a state of inequality. The individual
psychology of inequality arose out of the feeling of “pride” which emerged in h
uman communities when men successfully conquered other animals .
They began to compare themselves with other fellows and endeavored to excel abov
e one another in all sorts of activities. The other side of inequality was as a
result of the increase in the productive capacity of human communities brought a
bout by the inventions of fire, metallurgy and agriculture. These inventions le
d to individual wealth and private property ownership and, Rousseau claims that
the real founder of the civil society was the man who first enclosed a piece of
land declaring it to be exclusively his own. This led to the setting up of rul
es and government as those possessing wealth could not live in security, and by
force and cunning the rich prevailed upon the poor to establish these rules to s
afeguard themselves.
According to Edward Younkins, Rousseau proposes that civilization brough
t about social ills. In the state of nature man enjoyed freedom unlike in Hobbes
’ state where there was war of all against all because power became a condition
sine qua non, the greatest thing desired by man. However the freedom got destroy
ed when civilization set in by the formation of civil society as a result of pro
perty relations that accompanied it.
This state of affairs could be stopped according to Rousseau, by the not
ion of the general will; a social contract that allows for the state of affairs
to become properly a legitimate social order. This position of Rousseau is para
doxical because he criticized this earlier in his writing, however, eventually r
ecommends it as a means of restoration of total freedom of man in the civil soci
ety. The main problem is to found a form of association which the whole common s
trength of the community will be enlisted for the protection of persons and prop
erty. That is, each member, when united with the other, renders obedience to his
own will, and remains as free as he was. That is, what the social contract wan
ts to achieve. The basic aim of the contract is for all to renounce their indivi
dual will, to an all encompassing sovereign body which represents the general wi
ll. In this sense, he agrees with Hobbes that there is need for a sovereign that
represents all in all – for the interest of both the young and old in the state
.
In this chapter we have succeeded in looking at the development of the s
ocial contract both pre and post Hobbesian social contract theory. In the next c
hapter, we shall dwell on the meaning of the social contract theory as Hobbes po
sited.
1.4 MEANING OF SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
In the field of politics, there are basically two major theories which explain t
he origin of government. These are Divine Authority or Authority given from God
and Social Contract. The proponents of divine authority theory hold that every
society is created by God and the kings, leaders have been bestowed with the hon
our of taking care of it and every other person is subject to him. It is this ve
ry idea that had influenced the early civilization which saw the king as a uniqu
e and sacred person. Even Plato for instance is said to have presented kings as
godlike persons. Plato, during his presentation on social change, remarked that
the best kind of society is the one governed by the “godlike” kings. This notio
n is rooted on the conception that the society is a product of God’s creation an
d not as a result of any human gatherings or sharings.
The second theory that explains the origin of the state is the contract
theory. The idea of government is a resultant of man’s thinking ability to remed
y all kinds of problems in his life. It is this theory of government’s origin th
at Hobbes adheres to; the idea of social contract. This theory is always histori
cally traced to Thomas Hobbes; however, this view is contentious since some peop
le hold that he merely popularized it and is not the founder of the contract the
ory. In other words, in as much as some people hold Hobbes as the founder of co
ntract theory, some others contend seriously against it people in all aspects of
live have been known to involve in one kind of interaction or another. One to o
ne, family to family, to the level of the society. Philosophers like Aristotle h
old and strongly believe that man is by nature social and must interact with peo
ple in order to survive in the society.
More so, men, throughout the ages, have loved and interacted with each o
ther, either as friends and relations or as a means of survival. But the questio
n is, what really brought mankind together; to live in the society and relates t
o one another? For Aristotle, man is a socio-political animal who is capable of
meeting his basic needs because of his cooperation with his fellow human beings.
However, some philosophers as well as Psychologists argue that man is by natur
e solitary, that society is what has situated man to live together. This group b
elieves that God created the society and gave it out to man – for it was God tha
t brought them together as one human family.
Among the two explanations given as the origin of government / state, th
e social contract theory as an agreement entered into by individuals under a hea
lthy surrender to be ruled by a leader, whom out of trust, they entrust the soci
ety has more credibility as the main origin of the state. This immediately place
s obligations on every citizen to obey the laws of the state. The consent of the
citizens to obey the laws shows the kind of relationship that exists between th
e state and her citizens. This interaction by way of agreement between two peopl
e, husband and wife, families, communities and members, schools and so on, is re
garded as contract. Hobbes in the Leviathan refers to this as the “mutual transf
erring of rights” . People in their right senses decide to give up totally their
natural rights of self-preservation to a Leviathan, who will be their represent
ative and takes the responsibility of promoting the welfare of every citizen, si
nce they cannot really manage it well on their own.

CHAPTER TWO
THOMAS HOBBES’ SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
2.1 The State of Nature
In Hobbes, the state of nature was a natural human state before the emergence of
the organized structural society. The discussion on the state of nature was an
attempt to make a historical evaluation of man in the original state and his re
lationship with others prior to the civil society. In the words of a renowned fe
minist theologian, Elizabeth Johnson:
All persons are constituted by a number of essential relations, which may be cal
led anthropological constants. These include relation of bodies as medium of hum
an spirit, relation to other persons as the matrix in which individuality arises
as the context for identity; relation to social, political and economic structu
res; conducting by historical time and place; the place of theory in the praxis
of one’s culture as opposed to instinct alone; and orientation to hope and the p
ull of the future. These constants mutually condition one another, and are const
itutive of the humanity of persons .
This societal idea of man contradicts the ancient belief that God fashioned soci
ety and thus, man was naturally a social and political animal. Hobbes does not c
onsider the state of nature as an organized human society; rather it was a state
of individualism. Man finds himself in all kinds of troubles, and makes his own
justice.
However, there are two opposing views as to the cause of man’s predicame
nt from which an organized civil society emerges as a remedy: ‘the equality of m
an, and the defect in the nature of man’. Plato and Spinoza champion the first,
whereas Augustine is a strong proponent of the second. For Hobbes, the problem
of man was rooted in his egoistical and selfish nature. For him, men in history
were equal in the state of nature, but it was the egoistic interest of individua
ls that brought envy and ill-feelings about another. The equality here accordin
g to Hobbes, will be altered by Locke, who stressed the freedom and altruistic p
reservation of all men’s life , against Hobbes who emphasized self-preservation
at the expense of others.
The state of nature could be regarded as a condition in which all men we
re practically equal to the other in both physical and physiological features. T
hat there are some physical and physiological features peculiar to individuals d
oes not remove the fact of this equality. Hobbes endorsed physical inequality, w
hich for him existed only in the application of the basic faculties endowed to m
an by nature. It means that the inequality is simply based on nurture rather th
an nature. In other words, by nature men are equal and by nurture unequal.
It is obvious that Hobbes acknowledges that some of us are much stronger
 than others, consequently affirming inequality. That Hobbes detects this differ
ence in physical ability does not mean that the strong and weak cannot achieve t
he same goal. For instance, “as to the strength of the body, the weakest has str
ength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or conniving wi
th others that are in the same danger with him” . We see here that what matters
is not who executes the plan or which plan, but the end. If the weak succeeds in
eliminating his opponents and the strong succeeds also in elimination his enemi
es, it implies that both are equal. The major concern here is that both eliminat
ed their enemies.
2.2 Man in the Original State of Nature
In the state of nature, man was solitary since there was no society and no recog
nized or constructive association with others. Man existed and lived as though h
e was the only one in the world, trying to preserve his life alone. However, the
solitary man did not exist alone since there were thousands in the same conditi
on as he was. The presence of another of his kind, with the same ambition and i
nclination posed a very serious threat to his survival, competing for limited re
sources endowed by nature.
Moreover, man in the state of nature was susceptible to attack from enem
ies as there were no laws governing (no civil society) the actions of men. Thoug
h Hobbes recognized a kind of law in nature, it was the law of self-preservation
, of which everybody is a judge in his case. This according to John Abbo, is the
only inviolable law of nature, the only inalienable right of men. There were vi
rtually no enterprises, no real handiworks because of the fear of being invaded
by others and destroying all the laboured property. The fear in the state of na
ture crippled people’s action and their disposition to use their natural gifts t
o work for their own satisfaction. He who was successful brought enemies to hims
elf, and he who is more successful accumulated more enemies as well.
The natural or original condition of man in the state of nature could be
summed up as a state of “anything goes”. A state that John Abbo describes as a
state of vulnerability of man: first, the competition, which springs up from the
desire of one object by many. The cause of this competition is love for gain. T
he second cause of man’s condition in the state of nature is the “diffidence”, w
hich prompts people to look everywhere for safety. The third which is “glory”, l
eads people to seek reputation. The first uses violence to make one the master o
f other men’s persons, wives, children and cattle; the second, to defend them; a
nd the third for trifles as a word, a smile. What this implies is that man went
everywhere, applied any means because of gain so as to achieve his goal. The en
d justifies the means becomes man’s famous aphorism. In other words, since power
and self-preservation were utmost desire of men, therefore any of these could b
e achieved by any means, even through violence. The worry of this acquisition wa
s the duty to maintain and keep them from the enemies. Man faced the challenge o
f retaining what he had procured in the state of nature.
Hobbes describes this state of competition, conflict and war as ‘solitar
y, nasty, brutish and short, as a state of war of every man against every man, a
place of the survival of the fittest. Life is solitary because each individual
lives and thinks for himself, it is nasty, brutish and short, in that each indiv
idual is a potential killer and violence is the order of the day, and life can b
e easily terminated any day, any moment. In contrast to this Lonergan acknowled
ges:
That humanity is not yet finished. Thus, there is still a further dimension to
being human, and there we emerge as person, meet one another in common concern f
or values, seek to abolish the organization of human living on the basis of comp
eting egoisms and to replace it by an organization on the basis of man’s perseve
rance and intelligence, his reasonableness and his responsible exercise of freed
om.
In a nutshell, Lonergan emphasizes that egoism leads man nowhere but rationality
stands a better chance of “all living for all” (altruistic life).
2.3 Hobbes Contract Theory
In the state of nature, men possessed natural rights which enabled them to do ma
ny things even to one another. But again, the laws of nature connote those prece
pts or rules which are basically rooted on reason, “by which a man is forbidden
to do that which is destructive to his life, or taken away the means of preservi
ng the same, and to omit that, by which he thinks it may be best preserved” . Fo
r Hobbes, these are called precepts or “the maxims of prudence” and sometimes, h
e said, they are constitutive and regulative principles which form the basis of
social contract after the state of nature. Hobbes argues that they are products
of good reason or discovered by it, and this is possible through a deep reflecti
on about the horrible condition existing in the state of nature. One may not de
ny the effect of these percepts on man’s actions in the state of nature before t
he emergence of social contract in the form of agreement.
According to Hobbes, the precepts have no positive effects because they
are not generally agreed upon and enforced by the sovereign authority, and to ob
serve them would be foolish and very risky for men in the state of nature. There
was no strong desire to make them work since the state of nature was highly ana
rchical.
In this way Hobbes, laid down these laws which were fundamental to the s
tate of nature, and believed that they were eternal and immutable.
The first is that people in the state of nature should seek peace, although, the
condition in the state of nature does not allow for this. He believes that peop
le should seek peace because it is in everybody’s interest. The second is compli
cated, that every man should be willing, when others are so, too, to seek peace
and self-defence, not claiming his rights, and be contended with liberty which o
thers enjoy. Lastly, that every man should obey the covenant made.
These laws will necessarily form men to an agreement or social contract in which
each man would authorize and give up his right of governing himself, to a man o
r assembly of men.
The social contract that would ensue from the state of nature is two-fol
d: firstly, the people must agree among themselves, and later authorize a person
or group of persons to lead them. This leader or leaders would be given the abs
olute power to rule, and would be above the social contract. This assertion of
Hobbes is very misleading. If people could be under the contract, what would mak
e the sovereign authority or Leviathan to be above the contract? Who could curb
the human excesses of the Leviathan?
In the social contract one gives up his rights to hold onto the cooperat
ion of people, against this, we will return to the state of fear , insecurity an
d ‘war of everybody against everybody’ (bellum omnium contra omnes).

2.4 The Sovereign and Power

Hobbes social contract theory loses its importance or value without an absolute
sovereign power. His political theory drives from his views about human nature a
nd this made Hobbes to postulate an absolute monarch who can curb human excesses
. But the question, one can ask is whether his views about human nature, his pol
itical theory of absolute sovereign ruler is correct. Since men sometimes do alt
ruistic things that are clearly not selfish it means that man is not always moti
vated by selfish desire as Hobbes posits. On the other hand, one cannot deny th
e fact that men are selfish as Hobbes clearly stated.
Hobbes strongly encouraged monarchy, which he saw as natural and best le
adership for the continuity of government. Whether a monarchy or not, the rights
and powers of the sovereign are still absolute. The sovereign needs to be power
ful and very strict in order to enforce any promises made by the citizens. The b
asic aim of instituting the sovereign is for peace and unity in the society. For
Hobbes, a tyrannical ruler who can maintain peace is better than a benevolent l
eader who cannot maintain peace in the state.
The primary duty of the sovereign then, was to guide and protect people.
To carry this on, he had unlimited and absolute power to laws. The people were
bound by these laws. The sovereign became the arbiter of what is good and evil.
The people owed nothing to any other head rather than the sovereign in the socie
ty. In other words, no one else was empowered to enforce laws or punish on behal
f of the sovereign without direct permission from him. Hobbes captured this in p
ictorial form:
They that are subjects to a monarch cannot without his leave cast off monarchy,
and return to the confusion of disunited multitude; nor transfer their person fr
om that bears it to another man, or assembly of men, for they are bound, every m
an to every man, to own and reputed author of all, and that he that is already s
hall do and judge fit to be done, so that any one dissenting, all the rest shoul
d break their covenant made to the man, which is injustice. They have also, ever
y man given the sovereign to him that bears their person. Therefore, if they dep
ose him, they take from him that which is his own, and again it is injustice.
The sovereign was at liberty to carry out his functions, irrespective of the soc
ial contract.
This whole idea of a monarch not being deposed of his authority is in ac
cordance with the early civilization, which saw a king as instituted by God, as
his representative. The king was seen as divine authority and could only be depo
sed by God. Besides, if the king was highly corrupt, it was commonly believed th
at God allowed him there for a special purpose. It was expected that the king sh
ould be generous, charitable and administer justice especially to the less privi
leged. Whoever disobeyed or resisted authority went against God’s order and dese
rved severe condemnation.
However, some philosophers argue that the sovereign is human and therefo
re should not be the maker of laws and executor at the same time. He could brea
ch the general contract which deserves punishment as given to other contractors,
but who will give him punishment? This could lead to protest against the sovere
ign, whom Hobbes gives absolute power of leadership.
Given modern experiences regarding the state of power, Hobbes’ understan
ding of power gives opposite since power is shared among the different tiers of
government in many countries in the world, in fact his examples are just extreme
and unconvincing;
We might recall the American (U.S) constitution, where powers of legislation, ex
ecution and case-by-case judgment are separated (to Congress, President and the
Judiciary respectively) and counter-balance one another. Each of these bodies is
responsible for judging different questions and cases. There are often, of cour
se, boundary disputes, as to whether legislative, executive or judicial powers,
should apply to a given issue, and no one body is empowered to settle this cruci
al questions of judgment.
Division of powers is very important to any government because it balances diffe
rent groups and bodies into decision making. They help to prevent disputes from
escalating into violent conflict or civil war.
CHAPTER THREE
THE LAW OF THE STATE
In our discussion on the nature and condition of man in the state of nature, bef
ore the emergence of civil society, we discovered that absence of law is one of
the causes of violence and chaos. Man is vulnerable to many dangers and fears ar
ising from his natural conditions. The worst of all problems is the fear of sudd
en death. Life here is ‘do whatever you like’, decide and carry it out. It did n
ot work well with man in this condition. Thus, man needed a sovereign who could
discharge the functions of the arms of the government: promulgation of law, enfo
rcement of law and administering the law. In other words, power and authority co
nferred on the sovereign make him the right leader of all. He worked to direct a
nd guide the actions of everybody lest individual rights may be subjugated.
It is based on this that the present chapter is attributed to the law an
d its nature. The chapter aims to investigate the effectiveness of the sovereign
in carrying out his official responsibility via establishment of law to guide h
is affairs in the civil state.
3.1 What is Law?
Different people have attempted to define law holistically, approaching it from
diverse perspectives. What is actually meant by “law”? People have made their co
ntributions toward the exploration of the concept law. Yet there is no generally
accepted definition of law. In ordinary language, laws are regarded as any kind
of rules and regulations whereby actions are judged. Simply law is meant to gui
de our actions, spur us into action and discourage us from doing certain things.
For Wilson Woodrow, every law should be authorized by an authority; law implies
that portion of the established thought and habit which has gained distinct and
formal recognition in the shape of uniform rules backed by the authority and po
wer of government. In this definition the state is the power and authority behin
d the law. For T.H Green, law is the system of rights and obligation which the s
tate enforces. It is in this line Erikson J, sees the law “as the command of a
sovereign who is seen as above the law, but made by him as an instrument for go
verning his state. It is only obliging to the subjects who owe him allegiance an
d obedience” . For Aquinas, a law is nothing else than “a dictate of reason in t
he ruler by which his subjects are governed” . Aquinas’ conception of law does n
ot contradict Hobbes notion of law, which the commonwealth had commanded by word
, writing, or by sufficient sign of the will, to make use of, for the distinctio
n of right and wrong; what is contrary and what is not contrary to the rule. Th
e sovereign is the legislator of the law which must be for the good of the entir
e citizens in the state.
Here, Hobbes proposes that laws are made for the convenient administrati
on of justice, the preservation of people’s basic rights. J.W Salmond defines la
w based on this, as the body of principles recognized and applied by the state i
n the administration of justice. It means that those principles are recognized
by the state, aiming at making the people happy. In the words of Aquinas, “law a
imed at being obeyed and observed by its subject to make them good. For if the p
roper effect of the law is fixed on true good, which is the common good given ac
cording to Divine justice, it follows that law simply makes men good” . On the o
ther hand, if the intention of the law giver is fixed on that which is simply go
od, but useful or pleasurable to himself, which is in opposition to Divine justi
ce, then the law does not make men good. This could happen in a state whereby a
government is privatized, a government by selfish men. In this instance, the law
is corrupt; it has lost its essence and effect, absolutely perverse. Any leader
that holds onto corrupt laws does not fulfill his obligations as the head. For
Hobbes, such a leader or ruler is tyrannical.
3.2 Overview of Natural Law
In the introduction, we saw that natural law is important to this work because H
obbes tells us that in the state of nature each person has a right (liberty) gui
ded by reason to use all things and this reason makes man to do things he deemed
fit for the preservation of his life, it is this natural reason that Hobbes reg
arded as natural law. The concept of natural law may not be meaningful if some
fundamental ideas are rejected. Such truths are to be accepted so as to make the
theory of natural law plausible. It entails that the human mind knows the essen
ce or nature of things from which the order of the universe presented in the ete
rnal law. That man recognizes in the order of the created things. This natural l
aw of reason helped men to think of electing a head, a leader that would protect
the general interest. However, the natural state of man, amidst natural law is
not encouraging, since men are in constant opposition and war against each other
.
In order to solve this conflictual life, Hobbes proposed a sovereign who
 will apply natural law in making peace in the state of nature. Hobbes tells us
that each person possesses reason. Each man is endowed with reason at least for
self preservation. There was no leader to coordinate this human reason for good.
The state of nature is seen as a lawless state, a state of anarchy; there are n
o legislative, executive and judicial powers. Each man possesses his own individ
ual administrative power in whatever means he chooses. However, this ill situat
ion, which Hobbes believes to be ruled by the selfishness of men, is not devoid
of every law and order. There is in the state of nature what Hobbes calls “the n
atural law of reason” . The natural law of reason makes man to do that which pre
serves his own life. In a nutshell, natural law is the instinct in all creatures
for self-preservation. This law of instinct is what some people regard as law o
f nature.
The problem with Aristotle associating the natural law with all created
things both rational and non-rational is in his idea of teleology whereby everyt
hing tends towards its perfection. Thus, he considers this natural inclination
towards one’s perfection as the conformity with the natural law. There is need f
or a clear distinction between law of nature and ‘natural law’. In Aristotle’s v
iew, the law of nature could be described as that in which every creature in the
universe conforms to, for being part of the natural law is an ordinance of reas
on, which is only for man, as the rational creature. This means that the law of
nature simply applies to all things since it governs the activities of the whol
e universe, whereas ‘natural law’ is solely a participation in the law of nature
by rational being.
Moreover, Hobbes gives us a notion of the law of nature as “a precept or
general rule found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which
is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the same; or t
o omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved”. In spite of this, Hob
bes also posits the fundamental law of nature, the precepts of general reason th
at every man ought to endeavour for peace as far as he can obtain it, or apply t
he advantages of war. The second law of nature following from the first is that
a man be willing, when others are, for the sake of peace to lay down his right t
o all things, and be contended with so much liberty against other men, as he wou
ld allow father men against himself. The law of nature for Hobbes could be seen
as a law of self-preservation, and this is argued to be the foundation of the s
elfish nature of man. The above definition agrees with Aquinas’ conception of la
w as “an ordinance of reason applied for the common good” . However the end prod
ucts of the two definitions differ, as Hobbes; is for self interest whereas Aqui
nas’ for the interest of the whole community.
The problem of natural law is not new in philosophy for it is at least o
ne of the most ancient concepts in human thought that requires deep reflection.
In the pagan Greece, natural law suggested something peculiar only to human natu
re unlike in the modern era that it has a Christian undertone. Thus, the Greeks
saw natural law as pertaining solely to human reason. Natural law, however is na
tural to man. Though it is unwritten, it is known to all and obeyed by all men,
because the precepts are immanent in human nature. They are implanted in us and
expressed through us. It is so deep rooted in the men’s hearts that it can neve
r be wholly wiped our at anytime in all the people. This portion gives natural l
aw a universal quality.
Natural law is universal in the sense that it is known by every individu
al and everywhere. It is endowed to all men in the universe. One can argue that
natural law should be applied to all human beings since all have the same inclin
ations and natural conditions in the Hobbesian state of nature. However, mad men
are exempted in that their acts are not informed in freedom and conscious thoug
ht pattern. Children too who have not yet developed their faculty of human reaso
ning are not held responsible for their acts that are not in conformity to the n
atural law.
We should note that though the natural law precepts are not written, it
is not an excuse for breaching them, since is universally known and deal with pr
actical knowledge. According to Aristotle, the man of practical reason (wisdom)
becomes the arbiter of what is right and wrong. In the words of Aristotle, the m
an of practical wisdom is one who has constantly and consistently allowed his ac
tions to be directed and influenced by the faculty of reason rather than the emo
tions, feelings and desires.
In the discussion of Hobbes’ state of nature, we learnt that his politic
al theory is built on the notion of the existence of natural right. Natural law
becomes an ordinance for the preservation of these basic rights endowed to man b
y nature. According to Hobbes and John Locke, the basic rights of every man are
right to life and right to property. This simply means that Hobbes built his na
tural law theory around the natural rights, since laws are meant to preserve the
rights of the people in the society, the it is self-evidence that natural law p
reserves these rights. In the civil society formed through the free agreements o
f the individuals, the civil law becomes an acknowledgement of the natural law –
because one is formed from the idea of another.
3.3 Effects of Civil Laws on the Contract Theory
Since Thomas Hobbes portrayed man in the state of nature as being motivated by h
is love for self, which resulted to a state of war and anarchy, it follows that
the civil laws are needed as means of controlling emotions and appetite. If this
is not done, the new civil society may be the same with the former society, the
state of nature.
Hobbes therefore, defines civil laws “as the laws that men are bound to
observe because they are members of a commonwealth”. The civil laws are for ever
ybody, those rules which the Leviathan has commanded, to make us of for the dist
inction of right, and wrong. The essence of law for Hobbes is to maintain peace
and order in a civil society. He sees the law of nature and civil laws as conta
ining each other and aiming at the same goal. Law in the first place is a comman
d and should be obeyed by the subjects. It means that civil laws should be obser
ved and obeyed in the civil society by the citizens. But for the civil laws to b
e effective enough to protect people’s rights, maintain peace and order in the c
ivil society, there is need for a judicial arm of the government to administer j
ustice – rewarding good and punishing evil, that is to distribute equal justice
and fairness. It is based on this that we can consider the well being of a civil
state to solely rely on the enablement of the judiciary to act according to the
civil laws.
The law of a state is a means and an organ through which the sovereign u
ses to protect his subjects from attacks and infringements from fellow citizens
who might want to manipulate them. Thus, civil laws give meaning and scope to pa
rticular ways of acting in the civil state. Human rights and freedom are protect
ed through the civil laws of the state. In other words, by promulgating civil la
ws, the sovereign guides and preserve the people who have voluntary ceded their
legislative, executive and judicial rights to him, with the hope that he would s
urely protect them. The end of this gesture is the maintenance of peace and orde
r by the Leviathan, which was totally absent in the proposed Hobbesian state of
nature. Individuals can find a means of protecting themselves, if the sovereign
fails to maintain peace and order in the state. This would definitely take us ba
ck to the state of nature a state of war of everybody against everybody. So, to
make sure that the aim of the covenant is achieved, the civil laws must be prop
erly enacted and used for the benefit of all the people. The government must be
at alert and effective in exercising or discharging her duties. Since the effect
of civil law is the administering of justice and equity among the people, to en
sure peace and order in the state, there is need to explore the rule of justice
in the civil state.
3.4 The Rule of Justice
We understood from Hobbes that there was no notion of justice in the state of na
ture, there was no law to forbid people from acting in a particular way especial
ly in view of self-preservation. People considered their actions just, even when
they were actually unjust in the state of nature. In the artificial state, this
has to be changed, people appointed leaders who make laws for the preservation
of individuals and people collectively. It means that each person is expected to
 behave in accordance to the will of the sovereign. Any deviation from this beco
mes disobedience, injustice and deserving of punishment. Put differently, the ci
vil state observes a distributive justice whereby each person is rewarded or dul
y punished based on merit. Thus, Hobbies defines justice as the performance of t
he covenant and giving every man his own merit. In other words, we agree to liv
e together in an organized state, discharge our duties and responsibilities – by
obeying rules and precepts of the sovereign. However, when we go against the ag
reed laws of the state, we should be punished. In the Leviathan, Hobbes defines
crime “as committing by deeds or words of that which the law forbids, or the omi
ssion of what it has commanded” . As a result of this, we can say that without c
ivil and natural laws, there would be no crime or offence, and by implication, t
he notion of justice is gone.
Moreover, this calls to mind the dictate of the Golden rule which states
“do not to others which you think unreasonable to be done by another to you” .
In practical life, this is not always the case, since people sometimes act accor
ding to the inclination of self-preservation (which is the main reason for the s
ocial contract). This is why the sovereign is generally empowered to administer
punishment to offenders or falterers. Punishment helps to deter people from furt
her crime and also a lesson to them that have ‘the same possibility to act in th
e same way’. It is important that punishment should outweigh the gain the indivi
dual would get from going against the civil laws, or else people may choose to b
e punished, in so far as the gain is greater.
The third law of nature is rooted in justice: It states that men should
perform their covenant, otherwise the covenant is in vain, just empty words. To
break this covenant is unjust – injustice from this means the non-performance of
covenant that is, acting contrary to the agreement made in the state. The rule
of justice simply implies equal distribution of justice-by punishment or providi
ng individual needs. Any act that compels one to disobey the civil authority is
unjust. In other words, having voluntarily agreed to give up one’s rights for t
he maintenance of peace, it will be an act of injustice for a person to breach t
he law. The sovereign is empowered to mete out punishment to all the unjust in t
he society.
In a nutshell, what Hobbes is asserting here is that the notion of justi
ce and injustice emerged with the establishment of a new state of nature, ruled
by the sovereign. But there is a question: what happens to the natural rights of
man? In the state of nature, men had the natural rights to everything, and jus
tice was the giving of this right to whom it was due, however; there was no noti
on of justice, it did not exist. Hobbes explains that absence of justice in the
original state of man, is as a result of no covenant on which the notion of just
ice is based. The idea of justice and injustice are products of the later life o
f man.
On the other hand, Locke and Rousseau might not agree with the above ass
ertion since they believed that man is naturally altruistic; they would assert t
hat in the state of nature there was the idea of justice but not as painted by H
obbes. Locke as we saw in the previous writing asserted that men were free and e
ach lived according to his own liking. This freedom is not a license to act as o
ne desires, since there is a natural law of reason, which directs and guides the
actions of the people. The main purpose of this natural law is to ensure that
nobody shall impair the life, health, freedom or the possessions of others. So f
or Locke, there is justice in the state of nature.
CHAPTER FOUR
HOBBESIAN CONTRACT THEORY AND RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE IN NIGERIA
Nigeria is endowed with many religions and religious-minded citizens. Ap
art from the original traditional religion of the people, other religions have f
ound their ways into the country. Some of these are Christianity, Buddhism, Isla
m, Judaism and so on. The positive impact of these religions has been widely emb
raced by her members. We intend to explore the two major Religions in Nigeria: C
hristianity and Islam, and the corresponding application of irrationality in the
ir practices that leads to bloody religious violence. This violence did not star
t today, but for the purpose of this essay, we shall cover the period between 19
91 to 2010.
4.1 SURVEY OF RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE IN NIGERIA
Islam is one of the prominent religions found in this part of the world known as
Nigeria. As a religion, it involves the belief in God known as Allah. It was fo
unded by prophet Muhammad with the aim to guide the believers into a new way of
life revealed to him by Allah (God). Some violent extremists have turned this re
ligion into “a blind faith followed religion” . A religion meant for peace in pr
inciple, however a pandemonium in practice.
Also in Nigeria is Christianity which came through the activities of ear
ly missionaries. Christians are ardent followers of Christ with different groups
: Catholicism, Anglicanism and other denominations. These two religions, Christi
anity and Islam always clash in their religious practices especially in Nigeria.
Every group blames the other for the religious crises, but the question is whic
h group is behind these crises? In the words of David Cole,
These two Nigeria’s major religions,[sic] Islam and Christianity, are sometimes
depicted as monolithic entities that confront each other in pitched battles, wit
h formal implementation of the criminal aspects of the Muslim Sharia legal code
(or the likelihood of implementation) providing the spark that touches off viole
nce. Riots based (at least ostensibly) on religious affiliation and religious po
licies have indeed occurred, the worst such being the two confrontations that to
ok place in Kaduna between February and May 1999.
Even after these terrible experiences of February and May 1999, religious violen
ce has continued to occur in Nigeria between these two religious groups, Christi
ans and Muslims.
The situation in Kano is both simpler and more complex than that in other locati
ons in northern Nigeria. Although the vast majority of the population is Muslim
(perhaps as much as 90–95 %), many different Islamic sects coexist in the city.
The traditional sects, all of which are followers of Sunni Islam, include the Qa
driyya, the Tijaniyya, the Tariqa, the Malikiya, the Ahmadiya, and the Islamiya.
Another group is the Da’awa (some use the term to designate a separate sect, so
me use it as a synonym for hisba—the group that enforces shari’a provisions—whil
e still others use it to denote the preaching arm of the hisba).
The newer and more fundamentalist sects include the Izala (a sect that deals wit
h educated young people) and the Shiites (a sect that believes that only the hei
rs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed). The Iz
ala in particular tend to attract educated young people, both men and women. Th
e Shiites and sometimes the Izala are said to oppose applying sharia in Nigeria
until such time as religious leaders have taken over political leadership of the
country. Just as NGOs (a non-governmental organizations) have sprung up to take
advantage of opportunities created by Western donors’ calls for civil society p
artners, so Muslim sects have arisen in response to the calls for faith-based pa
rtners issued by Islamic governments and religious groups from Libya, Sudan, Ira
n, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries.
Some 11 northern states, beginning with Zamfara on October 27, 1999, and includi
ng Sokoto, Kano, and Niger, had passed into law the criminal law sections of the
Islamic Sharia code of conduct. The states concerned adavanced advanced with va
rying speed toward application. Zamfara and Katsina, for example, are now applyi
ng the code, while other states have not.
“Many northern politicians have supported the so-called Sharia movement
through personal conviction, political opportunism, political realism, or a sens
e that they should represent the wishes of those who elected them” . These laws
are sometimes misused to perpetuate religious crises in Nigeria.
The establishment of Sharia laws and courts really poses a constitutional proble
m because the Nigerian constitution guarantees a secular state, guarantees freed
om of religion, and vests in states concurrent power to establish their own cour
t systems. At both constitutional and practical levels, these guarantees are inc
ompatible in the light of the fact that Islam rejects separation of political fr
om religious authority and proposes a unified theocratic system of governance.
However, Nigeria as a multi – religious entity may find it extremely difficult t
o use Sharia laws to govern the whole people and religions.
Religious crises have become a ‘sore thumb’ in the country since independence wi
th continuous killings. In 1991 religious tensions erupted in April, when Shiite
Muslim clashed with police in the north. This led to the culmination of growing
strains between the Shiite leader and the military Governor of Kastina. After t
wo days of the clash in Kastina, another fight ensued in Bauchi State. These cri
ses claimed at least 84 lives and extensive damages, while about 29 peoples were
injured. In October of the same year, angry Muslims planned a successful attack
on a Christian Evangelist in Kano, and killed hundreds of people. Since the co
ming of democracy in 1999, there have been more exacerbating religious violence.
In May 1999 violence erupted in Kaduna State over the succession of an E
mir resulting in more than 100 deaths. In Kaduna in February-May 2000 over 1,000
people died in rioting over the introduction of criminal Sharia code in the Sta
te. Hundreds of ethnic Hausas were killed in reprisal attacks in southeastern Ni
geria. In September 2001, over 2,000 people were killed in inter-religious riot
in Jos. In October 2001, hundred were killed and thousands displaced in communal
violence that spread across the Middle-Belt states of Benue, Taraba, and Nasara
wa. This was not the end of the violence.
In May 2003, it is recorded that about 20,000 people were lynched and property w
orth millions of naira destroyed in a clash between the Muslim community and Chr
istians in Kano. From 2006 – 2008 over 500 people were killed and about 10,620
persons were displaced in religious crisis that took place in Jos, Plateau State
. In 2009, there were two major religious crises which involved a bloody sect,
“Boko Haram” (sometimes referred to as the "Nigerian Taliban", the group s membe
rs are followers of a self-proclaimed Islamic scholar, Mohammed Yusuf, who is ra
dically opposed to Western education and wants Sharia, Islamic law to be adopted
across Nigeria) and policemen. Consequently, some churches were burnt, pregnant
women slaughtered, catholic priests and protestant pastors have been strangled
to death, many innocent children lost their lives and goods worth of millions of
naira have been damaged in Kaduna, Jos and especially in Maiduguri. These cris
es nearly escalated to general Massacre between Igbos in the northern part of Ni
geria and northerners themselves.
The most recent religious crisis in Jos claimed more than 300 lives, which was m
otivated by previous crises. According to Victor Ulasi,
This year the numbers of casualty and death toll have increased in the religiou
s crisis between the Muslim and Christians in Jos, Plateau state, Nigeria which
had led to the death of dozens of people while others injured in fresh sectarian
violence leading to the imposition of a dusk-to-dawn curfew.
The crisis blewup at the Dutse Uku area of Jos after an argument on the rebuildi
ng of homes destroyed in the November 2008 clashes. The violence later spread to
Nasarawa Gwom, Rikkos and Yanshanu areas of the city. In fact, even as this ess
ay is being written, nobody knows the time for the next religious mayhem in this
multi - religious entity, Nigeria.
For some people this crisis is a confirmation of adulterated nation. Some people
have questioned the competence of Nigeria security agencies. It is regrettable
that Nigeria appears to be helpless as some religious sects continue to cripple
the nation’s assumed unity, drive away potential foreign investors and destroy a
lready existing investments.
However, some believe that the recurring outbreak of religious violence in Niger
ia is motivated by the corrupt politicians and then some suggest that religious
leaders also contribute to it. It is indeed a vehicle to destabilize the people
so that they will re-channel their interest to self preservation. It is not suf
ficient for the Federal Government to set up a commission of enquiry – which ser
ves as an “artificial balloon” that yields no good fruit. Instead of finding las
ting solutions to the crises which divide the country, and reduces our populatio
n, the commissions choose to verbally condemn the crises. Sometimes they condem
n innocent people who cannot speak for themselves in the society.
It is the position of this thesis that the government should descend mer
cilessly on religious extremists and equally punish any murderous sect and their
leaders. In other words, it is not enough to condemn the act, there is an urgen
t need for thorough investigations of all the perpetuators of this crisis and br
ing all to immediate justice.
4.2 Relevance of the Social Contract to Religious Violence in Nigeria
We have discussed the original state of man, his condition in this state, and th
e emergence of the contract theory as postulated by Thomas Hobbes. We are going
to contextualize Hobbes’ social contract in the Nigerian setting. We shall do th
is bearing in mind the notion of voluntary agreement by the people to constitute
one civil organized state for peace and unity. The fundamental essence of the s
ocial contract is for peace in the human society.
Many scholars attribute the present religious crises of the two main rel
igions in Nigeria, Christianity and Islam, to the amalgamation of the northern a
nd southern protectorates. In the words of Adewale:
The Nigerian political and religious problems sprang from the carefree manner in
which the British took over, administered and abandoned the government and peop
le of Nigeria. The British did not make an effort to weld the country together a
nd unite the heterogeneous groups of people. This led to civil war of about 30 m
onths, ethnic tensions and continuous religious violence. These things become Ni
geria’s biggest challenges.
Why continuous religious intolerance? Since people are still living as though in
their ethnic and tribal nature, unmindful of the common good of all Nigerians,
therefore we must experience uproars in some aspects of life. This religion itse
lf becomes ethnocentric.
In the picture of Hobbesian contract, people voluntarily entered into co
ntract with each other, joined together whereas Nigerians have not been voluntar
ily joined together. One could argue that the British were interested in Nigeria
’s economic value and not to unite them. Amalgamation was to increase their econ
omic earnings and not basically for peace and unity. It was by force and under
threat that some Kings and Obas placed their kingdoms under British power. When
the Europeans left Nigerian states, every tribe lives for her survival instead o
f ‘one Nigeria’. The Hausas take Islam as their own religion whereas other tribe
s have Christianity and others. Interestingly, the Hausa Muslims regard Yoruba M
uslims as fake (nominal Muslims), which could be motivated by violent extremists
who believe that a true Muslim must murder a Christian.
Furthermore, the contract theory in Hobbes was made to curtail and check
inordinate desires and irrational appetites of man in the state of nature. But
these things (inordinate desires and irrational appetites) are found among the c
itizens. Why must Muslims always fight to wipe away Christians if we are one Nig
eria? This brings to mind the relevance of the social contract to restore peace
to diverse religions in Nigeria. When people freely lay down their individual ri
ghts (religion) and wish other men what they would want them to wish them, then
peace will reign. If these two religious groups, Christianity and Islam should u
nderstand and apply the rules of social contract, that is, to endavour to seek p
eace, curb some religious excesses, eliminate religious extremists then peace wo
uld be restored. People who argue for combining the two religious groups do not
get it, because each group has a distinct doctrine and founder. However, both gr
oups co–exist under the same umbrella Nigeria, so the social contract can still
be well applied. The Nigerian constitution serves as the law and the three tiers
of government, handling the contract in the state. If these people effectively
apply rightful judgment to anyone who fails to keep the contract, by killing or
harming the other, then Nigeria may experience a lasting peace and unity, people
act out of rational appetites and not by tribal and religious sentiments. There
will be equal respect for one another in the Nigerian society.
Critique of Hobbes’ Social Contract Theory
Hobbes succeeded in positing a hypothetical theory of nature, where man’s condit
ion is portable. He gave a narration of the things in nature as they were before
the emergence of an organized society. Hobbes’ account virtually covers every s
ociety in the world, its cradle and development. In other words, he showed that
every society underwent transformation before having a systematic government. Th
is transformation is basically from the worst situation to a best society where
peace and unity exist.
However, there has been an argument against Hobbes’ historic account of
the state of nature (natural condition of man), which he sees as selfish and ego
istic. For Hopkins, there is no historical or anthropological evidence to suppor
t Hobbes analysis of the state of nature. On the other hand, it should be noted
that Hobbes is not interested in giving historical and anthropological account
of the development of the state; he rather gives a philosophical justification f
or the existence of a certain type of government – absolute authority of the sov
ereign, and why it must be obeyed and obligations of both the government and cit
izens. It is obvious that no matter how corrupt a system of government is, it is
better than the previous condition of man in Hobbes’ proposed state of nature.
According to Hobbes, man is naturally endowed with reason, and this give
s him the sense of self – preservation that led to chaos in the natural state. W
ith the aid of the same reason, men resorted to the social contract as a remedy
necessary to restore peace in the society. The social contract as we read from H
obbes, involves voluntary renunciation of one’s right for the common good of all
. This will not be welcomed by some political thinkers and libertarian like Patr
ick Henry and Thomas Jefferson. As an ardent proponent of Libertarianism, Patric
k Henry prefers liberty to everything on earth. “No liberty for him, no life” .
In fact, death is preferable to the transfer of liberty and human rights just fo
r the protection of the sovereign and others. For him, the sovereign is a slave
master dealing with the citizens. In the thought of Jefferson, the theory of Hob
bes that peace is needed at all cost is baseless because death paves ways for la
sting peace and liberty. For Jefferson, the “tree of liberty must be refreshed f
rom time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants” . It is unfortunate tha
t Hobbes submits to the evils of tyranny to obtain peace for the people.
By ceding individual rights and liberties to the sovereign for his prote
ction, Hobbes limits individuals under the control of a group or a person. Wheth
er this person or group is selfish or wicked, Hobbes approves it. However, the t
emperamental make-up matters a lot in this sense. For me, Hobbes is myopic to th
is in proposing that the office of a sovereign must be absolute. In this way Hob
bes creates a mortal god, whom everyone owes homage. While Hobbes insists that
we should regard our governments as having absolute authority, he reserves to su
bjects the liberty of disobeying some of their government s commands.
He argues that subjects retain a right of self-defense against the sovereign pow
er, giving them the right to disobey or resist when their lives are in danger. H
e also gives them seemingly broad resistance rights in cases in which their fami
lies or even their honor are at stake. These exceptions have understandably intr
igued those who study Hobbes. His ascription of apparently inalienable rights—wh
at he calls the “true liberties of subjects”—seems incompatible with his defense
of absolute sovereignty.
Moreover, if the sovereign s failure to provide adequate protection to subjects
extinguishes their obligation to obey, and if it is left to each subject to judg
e for herself the adequacy of that protection, it seems that people have never r
eally exited the fearsome state of nature.
Jean Hampton defends Hobbes’ social contract and the absolutism of the s
overeign. She says that a contractual relationship between sovereign and subject
will establish a set of higher laws directing the ruler’s actions that the subj
ects have a right to interpret. But this would lead to fighting among the subjec
ts about how the sovereign should act. This would lead to warfare and a return t
o the state of nature. Hence, Hobbes holds that if the union of the many into on
e is to survive, the sovereign must be the arbiter of good and evil, whatever is
necessary for peace and to defend his subjects.
Hobbes believed that the cause of “war of all against all” was due to m
an’s irrational and inordinate personal desires or self-interest. It means that
every human action is motivated by the self-interest of the agent. For Hobbes ma
n is naturally egoistic. This was exactly the cause of conflict in the state of
nature. However, this view has been heavily contested by some philosophers who h
old that man by nature is altruistic. But man could be motivated by sympathy and
pity to help others. On the other hand, one could argue that even when man help
s others, it relieves some feelings from him, either to be happy that others are
free or to expect reward from others too.
In the context of Nigeria, we claim to be under a civil state, where law
s and authority are respected. Whereas, people still kill and destroy one anothe
r. People under the Nigerian laws still breach them to set their neighbours abla
ze under the pretext of religion. Shall we say that the aim of the contract is d
efeated? In one sense, it is, because Nigeria is a combination of different ethn
ic groups under one Nigeria, but still experiencing killings as in the state of
nature. However, Hobbes’ social contract works because sometimes individuals are
afraid of punishment for going contrary to the laws. I think that we need to ap
ply the social contract very well for the betterment of Nigeria by voluntary sub
mission of our individual rights to one government. This government must aim at
restoring peace to the giant of Africa, Nigeria.
CONCLUSION
In the introduction of this essay, we noted that the aim of this writing was to
expose the analysis of Hobbesian contract theory. Hobbes taught that the contrac
t, which institutes the sovereign, is the only way to the attainment of peace an
d security in the human society.
We began this essay by surveying the social contract theory. A survey of
the life of Thomas Hobbes, examining his birth, studies, works and his last day
s on earth was made. In doing this, we saw the need to expound Hobbes’ political
background, tracing those factors that motivated his political thought. In othe
r words, exploring what formed his writing from the profile of his age. Then we
discussed the meaning of the social contract theory and its origin. For some phi
losophers, contract theory began with Plato, Aristotle, Hooker, and Machiav
elli; some thinkers believe that Hobbes developed this theory in the 16th centur
y. This extended our discussion to examine the thoughts of Hobbes’ two contempor
aries: John Locke and Rousseau, on their conception of the social contract theor
y. In chapter two, we simply examined Thomas Hobbes’ social contract theory. Thi
s chapter deeply explored the original condition of man in the state of nature,
life in this condition was nasty, solitary, brutish, poor and short. The only re
medy for him was the social contract where everyone gave his or her rights to th
e sovereign, for the maintenance of peace in the society. We examined the sovere
ign and its legislation of power in the civil state.
Chapter three presented the law of the state which was prompted by Hobbe
s’ assertion that absence of law was one of the causes of man’s predicament in t
he state of nature. We attempted definitions of law and made an overview of natu
ral law. Also in this chapter, we examined the effects of civil laws on the con
tract theory. In the thought of Hobbes, civil laws are meant to guide the civil
society. These laws are very crucial to the contract, since the Leviathan exerci
ses its power based on the civil laws in the state. In the state of nature there
was no notion of justice, however, the emergence of the new civil society broug
ht the notion of justice to all men. This made it necessary for us to discuss th
e rule of justice - how the Leviathan rewards or punishes offenders in the state
.
In order to contextualize Hobbes’ social contract theory, we examined th
e relevance of Hobbes’ contract theory to religious violence in Nigeria in the f
ourth chapter. We tried to explore religious crises in Nigeria between 1991 - 20
10. We showed how Nigeria can solve religious conflicts by fully application of
the Hobbesian contract theory.
Lastly, having toured the basic foundation of Hobbes’ social contract, w
e moved to engage it to a strict critical analysis; we carefully explored differ
ent contributions of political thinkers for and against Hobbes’ social contract
theory. Amidst all critiques, one may not deny completely that Hobbes’ social co
ntract is necessary for sustenance of lasting peace and unity in the present Nig
erian society because it will encourage peaceful unity among us.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae, Fathers of English Dominican
Province. Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press Inc., 19
48

Gerard, Hughes. “Aristotle on Ethics” In Routledge Philosophy Guide Books, edi

ted by Jim Crane and Jonathan Wolff. London: Taylor & Francise- Library press, 2
003, p.37.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, Michael Oakeshott edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1

960.

________ . The Leviathan. Edward White edition. Canada: Gutenberg Ebook, www.scr
ib.com (2002).

________ . Leviathan in English Works edited by Molesworth. Aelen: Scientia, 19

63.

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Mcpherson edition. Cambridge: Gutenber

g Ebook, www.scrib.com (2003).

Rousseau, Jean – Jacques. The Social Contract Theory, G. D. Cole edition. Cambri
dge: Gutenberg Ebook, www.scrib.com (2003).
Secondary Sources
Abbo, John. Political Thought: Men and Ideas. Westminster: The New Press, 1960.
Ademoyega, Adewale. Why we Struck: The Story of the First Nigerian Coup. Ibadan:
Evans Publishers, 1981
Appodorai, A. The Substance of Politic., Madras: Oxford University Press, 1968.
Cranston, Maurice. “Thomas Hobbes” in Makers of Modern Thought, edited by Bruce
Mazlish. New York: American Heritage Publishing Co. Inc., 1956, p.113.
Collins, James. A History of Modern European Philosophy. Milwaukee: The Bruce P
ublishing Company, 1954.

Copleston, Fredrick. A History of Philosophy, Vol. III. London: Search Press Lt

d., 1953.

Chukwuorji, John. “Checks and Balances in Nigerian Political Situations” ,The To

rch Magazine, 2010.

Ewin, R. Virtues and Rights: The Moral Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Oxford: West
view Press Inc., 1999.

Feinberg, J. Duties, Rights and Claims, Philosophical Quarterely, Vol. 3, No. 2,

(February 1966), p.142.

________ . Social Philosophy and Human Rights. New York: Wadsworth, 1970.

Gilby, T. Between Community and Society. New York: Basic Book Publication Inc.,
1968.
Hampton, Jean. Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge Un
iversity Press, rep. 1998.

Hopkins, Gerard The Social Contract: Essays by Locke, Hume and Rousseau, edited
by Ernest Barker. London: Oxford University Press, 1962.

Irele, Dipo. Introduction to Political Philosophy. Ibadan: Ibadan University Pr

ess, 1998.

Johnson, Elizabeth. She who, Is: The Mystery of God in feminist Theological Disc
ourse. New York: Crossroad, 1992.

Kang, Suguron. Locke, Hobbes and The 17th Century Philosophers. New York: Thor
Publication Inc., 1966.

Kavka, G. Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory. New Jersey: Princeton Universit
y Press, 1986.

Kizito, Osudibia. Nigeria: The Case of Fragmentation. Delta State: Guinea – Chim
Ind. Ltd, 2007.

Locke, Hume and J.J. Rousseau, SOCIAL CONTRACT, Introduction by E. Barker, Londo
n: OUP, 1966.

Lonergan, Bernard. Method in Theology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 197

2.

Maier, Karl. This House Has Fallen: Nigeria in Crisis. (London: Penguin Books, 2
005),

Nabofa, M. Y. Principal Elements in African Traditional Religion. Ibadan: Ola –

Oga Commercial Press, 1992.

Ndiokwere, Nathaniel. Leaders and Followers. Owerri: Assumpta Press, 2003.

Omotunde, Dele. “A Call for Peace” in Tell Magazine, no. 46, November 19, 2009.

Onigbinde, Akin. Philosophy and Social Sciences. Ibadan: Frontline Books, 2000.

Peters, Richard. Hobbes. London: The White Friars Press Ltd., 1956.

Plato, The Republic (tr), A.D. Lindsay. London: J.D. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1942.

________ . The Laws, Trevor Saunders edition. Britain: Hazell Watson and Viney
Ltd, 1982.

Rand, Benjamin. Modern classical philosophers. New York: The Riverside Press Cam
bridge, 1936.

R.E., Hobart. “Thomas Hobbes”, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 3 and 4, Ed.
P. Edwards, USA: The Thompson Corporation, 1972, s.v.

Russell, Bertrand. History of Western Philosophy. London: Routledge, 1996.

Salmond, J .W. Law and Justice, London:Lawrence and Wishart, 1968.
Le Bel, Maurice. Natural Law, in Alfred L. Scalan(ed) Natural Law Proceedings V
ol. II, Indiana: University Press, 1978, s.v.

Stephen, Leslie. Hobbes. London: Macmillan, 1940.

Strauss, Leo. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes. Chicago: University of Chicago

, Tress, 1936.

Smith, T. V. and Grene, Marjorie. From Descartes to Kant. Chicago: University

of Chicago Pres, 1954.

Woodrow, Wilson. The Fundamental Concepts of Public Law quoted in A .Appodorai,

The Substance of Politics. Madras: Oxford University Press, 1968.

Internet Materials
Bradley, A. C. (2003).“Introduction to the Idea of Moral” http://fair-use.org/t-
h-green/prolegomena-to-ethics/ ( 6 July, 2010).

________ . “Introduction to the Idea of Moral” http://fair-use.org/t-h-green/pro

legomena-to-ethics/ ( 6 July, 2010).

Bakunin, Mikhail. (1999). “The Immortality of the State” Anarchists Archive , h

ttp://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/state-im.htm (29
June, 2004
Cole, Raymond. (2005). http://www.thechristianexpositr.org/pg.122.html(16 April,
2010).

(2010). “Nigeria Christian/Muslim Conflict” Global Security Articles, http://www

.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/nigeria-1.htm (9 July, 2010).

(2004),“SquashedPhilosophers”http://www.btinternet.com/ (2nd July, 2010).

John Ahmed Abdullahi ( 2008 ).“Muslim Riot” Church Arise, http://churcharise.bl

ogspot.com/2008/02/again-muslim-riot-claims-3-lives-in.html (9 July 2010).

Lloyd, S. A. (2002). “Hobbes’ Moral and Political Philosophy” Stanford Encyclop

edia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/ (4 Jan, 200
4).
Samms, Gabriella. (2004). “Children Should not be Blamed for their Actions” http
://www.helium.com/debates/69697-should-parents-be-held-responsible-for-their-min
or-childrens-criminal-behavior/side_by_side (9 July,2010).