Defined by Thomas hobbes and john Locke?

Answer 1

in a social contract, in which people should give up individual freedom to live in an organized society.

They were both natural rights theorists and social contract theorists.

Natural rights theorists, meaning they both agreed that a person is born with the right to "life, liberty, and property" (not "pursuit of happiness") because they were endowed by the creator. They both agreed it's the government's job to protect these rights.

Social contract theorists meaning, the governed must give consent to the government in exchange for protection. This means the citizens of the land must give up some of their rights in order for their rights to be protected by the government. For example, I may have the right to free speech (arguably falling under the natural right to liberty) but that doesn't mean the government is going to let me spread lies about someone else, because that infringes of their rights (arguably, their right to liberty).

The main difference between the two is that Hobbes thought people were naturally brutish and brash and would kill each other in a state of nature in order to get what they want. He thought that in a state of nature (a theoretical state where there's no government), life would be short because people would kill each other. For this reason, government had to be big and enforce laws strictly because people were too stupid and mean to do the right thing and live in peace on their own.

john Locke, on the other hand, thought people were born without a good or bad spirit necessarily. He thought they were born as a blank slate (sometimes called "tabula rasa") and society influenced whether they were good- or bad-souled.

(Rousseau, on the other side of things, thought people were born with good souls and society would only make them bad.)

Answer 2

Social Contract