霍布士與洛克關於社會契約的論證模式

The Model of Arguments in Hobbes’s and Locke’s “Social Contract”

社會契約理論在現代自由主義傳統中佔主導地位，霍布士和洛克發起了這一傳統 。 兩人都試圖建立一種模式，其中國家及其基本制度，包括個人權利，都是從他們所看到的個人推論而得。在現今的論述中，這個個人，常被稱為「原子人」。這是因為他們所謂的個人，是一個完全與他所成長其中的社會相分離，概念上毫無關聯的人，既無社會、也無歷史，因此也是什目無身分的個人。這意踩著所有的個人， 「在本質上」 都是相同的 。也就是說，人有共同的「本質」，而且就本質而言，每個人都無性別之分，無膚色之分，也無族裔之分。他們的共同點，只不過是他們的理智，而這些理智， 就像什回未填寫內容的板子，如洛克的心智學說所顯示的： “tabula rasa”。個人在生活中透過經驗或教育所獲得的一切，都應該是後天銘刻、或「附著」在其上的。因此，社會契約理論可以自誇為普遍主義，即普遍適用於所有人，而不論他們的社會或文他。這個個人，即原子人，是社會契約論證模式的起點 ，也是此一傳統中許多後來者所遵循的。既然霍布斯和洛克是這個模型的兩個祖先，那麼， 霍布士與洛克爾人是如何構建它，對我們理解此 一模式與傳統而盲， 是有重要性的。這個模型適合 「經典」的定義：它受到很多人的談論，或甚至激烈的辯論，但沒有人，或很少人，試圖清楚說明它是 什麼。職是之故，這篇文章的唯一目的，只是儘量按照兩位思想者的論證原貌而攤開這個模式，而不摟雜任何個人的詮釋。

The Social Contract doctrine occupies the dominant position in the modern liberal tradition, with T. Hobbes and J. Locke as the two figures who initiated this tradition. Both tried to establish a model in which the state and its basic institutions, including the personal rights of the individual, were derived from the individual as they saw him. In today's discourses he is often dubbed as 'the atomic man.' This is because the individual as Hobbes and Locke saw him was one who was thoroughly unencumbered by, or detached from, the society in which he is brought up, and so, asocial and ahistorical. The individual in this type implies that everyone in his or her 'essence' is sexless, colorless, and non-ethnic. The individuals in essence are, i.e., invariably the same. What they have in common is nothing but their reason, which, in turn, is like a unfilled-out plate, as Lock’s doctrine of mind shows: “tabula rasa.” Everything else acquired by experience or education during one’s life are supposed to be inscribed or “attached” on it thereafter. Thus, this doctrine can boast itself as universalistic, i.e., universally applicable to all humans regardless of their societies or cultures. This individual, atomistic man, serves as the starting point of the model, which many later figures in this tradition followed. Since Hobbes and Locke are the two progenitors of this model, how they constructed it then is of importance for us to further understand the liberal tradition and the many doctrines based on this model. The model fits for the modern definition of a “classic,” in the sense that it is much talked about, or even hotly debated, by many, but none or very few have ever tried to be clear about what it is. This author then is trying hard to avoid personal interpretation. His sole purpose simply is lay bare this model as was constructed by the two thinkers.