1. Introduce the paper with a general claim about the social contract paradigm by stating whether
you deem it a fruitful methodology for political theorizing. If you deem it fruitful, briefly state
which of the three approaches (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) appears to you as more plausible and
worth pursuing than the others. If you do not deem it fruitful, introduce the main
reason behind your negative assessment.
2. Compare the three approaches mentioned above (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau). More precisely,
illustrate the main differences in their premises about human nature, and in
their conclusions about what constitutes a legitimate political regime.
3. In the light of your illustration of the differences between Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau (that
you have just provided in the central part of your paper) elaborate on the main claim/thesis that
you have sketched in the introduction, and conclude the paper accordingly. If you want to claim
that the social contract paradigm is not worth pursuing, you may want to hint at one (or more) of
its critics (Hume, Bentham, Burke, Marx) as possible alternatives.
The readings we have read are Hobbes Leviathan and Lockes Two Treatises of Government
