Peace According to John Locke and Thomas Hobbes - Essay Example

Peace According to John Locke and Thomas Hobbes Between Thomas Hobbes' and John Locke's views on peace, it may be asserted that Hobbes' understanding is more convincing because he takes general human behavior through history into consideration, and asserts that there is no guarantee how human beings will act in the absence of rule of law. This understanding contrasts considerably with John Locke's view that is more considerate of belief and moral judgment, though Locke does assert that fear of a divine being is important to make sure that individuals take the right decisions. Theories that apply to social life encompass understanding of human nature. Fundamentally, it is human nature that is focused upon in such theories, and this helps to explain the manner in which situations develop through time. Generally, it can be asserted that any theory that applies to society needs to have some kind of perspective on human nature too that would help to explain the situation in which man lives today. Whichever way one views human behavior, the present condition today has to be explained through that particular perspective. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are two social theorists that took human nature into great consideration in their work, and they each explained the manner in which society developed through this behavior. They also explained how society functions and how things have come to be socially and politically speaking through this behavior. Specifically, one of the their main areas of focus is 'peace' and how human beings up hold the idea of peace. Locke and Hobbes each have interesting views on this subject, and address it in their renowned works: John Locke's Second Treatise of Government and Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. The subject of peace for John Locke in his 'Second Treatise of Government' is viewed from a particular angle. He asserts that each individual's life is important in maintaining peace because it is the individual that is important to society, and the actions of just one person can impact an entire society. He agrees with liberty in society, but asserts that liberty among individuals needs to be honored. If it is breached, chaos may result, and peace may disappear. Locke asserts, "though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself" (C H A P. II. Of the State of Nature: Sect. 6). This clearly refers to suicide, and that in a liberal society people are not supposed to take their lives. Locke further asserts that it is wrong to take anyone else's life too. He asserts that man " has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession" (C H A P. I I. Of the State of Nature: Sect. 6). If one takes his or her own life or anyone else's, peace in society would be disrupted, as people would be disturbed. Also, others might resort to the same action and worsen the situation. Natural Law: With regard to John Locke's idea above, he bases his reason for this on his explanation of mankind's origin. He asserts that human beings do not have complete freedom to make decisions. Human beings must consider what is right and what they are answerable to. Locke refers to belief in God through this view, and this is evident when he writes about the state of nature. Locke asserts, "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent" (C H A P. II. Of the State of Nature: Sect. 6). Therefore, Locke asserts that whenever one takes a step in society, s/he ought to consider what a higher authority expects of him or her. It needs to be emphasized here that this view requires one to have a firm belief in a superior being. Undoubtedly, it may be asserted that such belief does aim at creating peace and harmony in society, but this obedience may be against the desires of several individuals. However, through such a belief individuals become emotional about particular serious decisions. Individuals tend to think twice about what they do, and this largely creates efforts towards peaceful resolution of issues. Human Obedience Through Fear: John Locke has views that explain human response to the expectations of a supreme God. For Hobbes, obedience of God's instructions is not largely for emotional reasons or consideration. The response that humans have to such divine orders is due to fear. If they did not fear anything happening to them at the end of time, they would do as they please. Hobbes says that the same explanation holds true for obedience in a society where there is rule of law. Peace in society is only possible because people fear what will happen to them if they do not obey the law, "For the laws of nature, as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions" (Leviathan: Chapter 17). Natural Human Response and Domestic Peace: Hobbes' belief is that human obedience is contrary to 'natural passions', which means that for him peace is not a natural passion, and human beings do not necessarily choose peace as the right path. This is in contrast to Locke who says that man knows better naturally. However, if man did naturally know better and make the right decisions, history would not be filled with so many wars in which millions have perished. Also, if man naturally really knew better, killing in any form would not exist. However, Locke goes on to assert, "every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature" (C H A P. II. Of the State of Nature: Sect. 8). Yet, this is not far from Hobbes view of human natural passion that includes "partiality, pride" and particularly, "revenge" (Leviathan: Chapter 17). Therefore, if peace has to be observed and maintained on a domestic level, there has to be some form of authority to enforce it. If everyone were to start passing judgment on their own, there might be a lot more death sentences awarded. The Importance of Rule of Law For Maintaining Peace in Society: Generally, in both John Locke's and Thomas Hobbes' views, it can be observed that they address the same issue from two entirely different angles. In Thomas Hobbes' view, peace and stability can only be maintained if there is law for it enforced. It is because of law existing in a society that people are likely to be peaceful and respect one another's rights. There are endless examples to demonstrate how chaos breaks loose when law enforcement fails or is crippled in any crisis. People tend to make the most of such opportunities, and an endless amount of primitive behavior can be observed. However, if law enforcement remains at its highest, such situations are prevented, and peace prevails. Do human beings know what is right Do they ultimately make the right choice with their own free will Or Do they make the right choices because they fear God In John Locke's view, since people are naturally aware of what is good, they know better, and can take the right action. Particularly because they are answerable to a divine God, they know that if they do not act responsibly they will disappoint him. However, whether this mechanism of belief and obedience to attain peace works is debatable. This is why, though Thomas Hobbes' views of human nature are not acceptable to many people, his views are clear cut and straightforward. Hobbes must have been aware that there are people who adhere to religious belief and prefer peaceful resolutions, but largely his views express what the majority of people are naturally like; "every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art for caution against all other men" (Leviathan: Chapter 17). This means that men are compelled to act within the framework of the law in society. After all, to begin with, Hobbes' theory asserts that human beings are not social animals, and need societal laws to control their actions. This is fundamental difference between Hobbes and Locke's work. However, Locke's views are not to be disregarded, as they form an important part of social control that is maintained through Ideological State Apparatus. Schools, churches and other kinds of community bodies help to maintain domestic peace, and Locke even asserts the importance of fearing God in order to maintain peace in society. This is to prevent men from going wrong even though they have the ability to know naturally what is right and wrong. Locke asserts: "God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, ... Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature (C H A P. II. Of the State of Nature: Sect. 8). To some extent here, one can see that Hobbes and Locke are on a similar platform because Hobbes says " covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all" (Leviathan: Chapter 17). Therefore, a clear bridge between Locke's and Hobbes' views can be observed here, and Locke tends to agree with Hobbes view that people in some cases must have fear of an authority for domestic peace to prevail. However, this may also apply to international peace too. Particularly in present times, this concept seems to apply. Maintaining International Peace: Coming back to Hobbes words just mentioned above: "every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art for caution against all other men", it can be observed that domestic as well as international peace can be encompassed by these words (Leviathan: Chapter 17). This particularly refers to one's natural right to protect him or herself. It may refer to a single country or a group of countries forming an alliance to protect themselves. Here again, it might be asserted that this concept applies to present day situations. Therefore, Locke's and particular Hobbes' views on using power or authority to instill fear is handy for maintaining international peace. However, it may be finally asserted that other countries may group together to protect themselves as well, and therefore result in different regions competing for power. Conclusion: Both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have their views on the subject of 'peace'. Each of them approaches this subject from his unique angle and understanding. Each understanding is based on the fundamental aspects involved. For John Locke, the fundamental approach includes human beings having natural rights, and each human being knows and generally respects other human beings' rights. Locke also asserts that human beings know the difference between right and wrong, and therefore, act accordingly. However, they do so because they understand that there is a divine God whose instructions they are under. In asserting this, John Locke also asserts that it is fear of this divine God that results in human obedience. Therefore, if human beings do not choose to act according to the natural ability to choose between what is right and wrong, they will be punished in the end. For Locke, many people submit to this threat, and this helps to bring about peace. From Locke's point of view, peace is generally guaranteed when individuals in society do not harm themselves or one another. However, individuals are given the right to act when they are threatened. This even includes having to act on offenders and punish them severely, whether they live in a single society or exist in foreign territory. International peace today is also being maintained in this way, as appropriate force may be necessary sometimes to guarantee peace and stability internationally. With Hobbes's approach, one reaches at a similar conclusion. This is because he asserts that human beings are not social animals, and they need to do what is right for themselves. Human beings in any region feel the need to protect themselves when they feel threatened. In a single society for instance, there may be rule of law that compels individuals to behave appropriately and live civilly. This law is necessary, and without it order would cease to exist because Hobbes asserts that human beings may not necessarily know the difference between right and wrong, and simply choose to act according to their needs. People would snatch each other's property in such situations. However, with rule of law domestically, order and peace is maintained. On an international scale, international law enforces peace. Those who do not adapt to such laws or violate them may have action taken against them. People in particular regions may even see the need to act beyond their borders in order to protect themselves, and this is currently what is happening at the international level today. Between the two theorists, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, it is difficult to determine which one of the two has a better understanding of how to achieve and preserve peace. John Locke tends to have valid claims because his theory applies to what is known as Ideological State Apparatus, and his theory also encompasses the natural right one has to protect him or self. Hobbes theory tends to be more focused on law enforcement. This would be considerate of Repressive State Apparatus, and does not consider the natural and emotional side of human beings. Hobbes asserts that human beings will act according to their needs. They do not necessarily choose the right way. Only if there is rule of law will they act in society's interest. Finally, it may be asserted that it is Hobbes theory that seems more valid, and this is because, as he says, in the absence of rule of law, there is absolutely no guarantee that human beings will choose what is right for everyone. People may act with consideration for others as long as they are bound by law (domestic or international law). However, if they have significant power and influence they may act as they please. References: Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Published. April 1651 Locke, John. Second Treatise of Civil Government. 1690 Read More