notoriousamarius:

philosophersdog:

Thomas Hobbes’ social contract theory is often presented as a group of people agreeing to forfeit some of their freedoms for the sake of bettering their life in one way or another (not getting killed, their land taken… etc.). But, in fact, Hobbes’ never claims that a person must give up some of…

I don’t get this, what’s the difference between giving up freedom and giving up rights?

For the life of me I can’t find the example that Hobbes uses to explain this, but I think I can remember it well enough to restate it:

A man is on a boat that is about to sink and the only way the boat can stay afloat for a while longer is if some cargo is thrown over the side. Now, if someone else were to throw the man’s cargo overboard, the man would not be free. But, in throwing his own cargo over, the man is acting freely.

This is what a social contract is like for Hobbes. Though the man gives up the right to keep his stuff (if he didn’t, the boat would sink and he would die), he freely chooses to throw his stuff overboard. The man would only not be free if someone where to do it for him—this is not what happens in Hobbes’ social contract. In Hobbes’ social contract, people freely choose to be a part of the contract and freely choose to give up their right to kill someone (or steal… etc.). They are free the whole time.