Comparative Study of Hobbes, Locke and Rawl's Ideas in the light of the Hypothetical Position of the Social Contract

In the modern paradigm of political philosophy, we are faced with a hypothetical position that called social contract. The mentioned paradigm is from Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau to draw the origins of the legitimacy of the political society and the various categories of political philosophy, such as security and property. John Rawls restored the social contract again in the late 20th century. It seems that the purpose of using this hypothetical position from political philosophers is to provide a way of "knowing" about politics. The present article seeks to comparatively assess the position of the hypothetical social contract in the political thought of Hobbes and Locke with the thought of John Rawls in the contemporary era. Findings of the research indicate that the use of the hypothetical position of the social contract from the modern thinkers has a deeper position, while this position is only a representation tool for John Rawls. Because Rawls did not try to use the position of Hobbes and Locke to explain forming political society and its legitimacy, and was only seeking justification justice. For this purpose, we have used a comparative method for matching the ideas and the library method is also a tool for collecting information.