First, there is no notion in the philosophical sphere that is as simple as that of the social contract. It could also be considered as one of the most important Western philosophical paradigms in line with shaping how individuals perceive social and justice structures. Technically, the most prominent philosophers of the 17d' century, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes shared many ideas on the same.
On the contrary, they also differed a lot. However, they are still considered as the most significant social contract theory philosophers and proponents. Regarding the two philosophers against each other, 1 could argue that Locke attained his philosophical maturity in years that were more settled. Such was a time when the English Civil War had subsided. He was then associated with political Whigs that struggled to attain limited monarchy (Locke, sect. 128).
By such sort of reasoning, if it could be acceptable that one agrees to the fact that Hobbes' aim, in line with his social contract theory, was to create favorable conditions for a sovereign that is all-powerful, Locke's argument, in turn, would be antipodean. Most definitely, the argument behind such a case is tight to the fact that Locke was involved in attempting to prevent James from succeeding his brother, Charles H. However, the standpoint of Hobbes cannot be as skeptical as that of Locke. Hobbes never emphasized the inherent virtue of humans such a move was calculated.