Thomas Hobbes vs John Locke - Essay Example

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke stand out as two of the most prominent and influential of the political philosophers. Both are ified as social contract theorists but Hobbes, whose work predates Locke's by approximately one century, was the polar opposite of the latter. Indeed, it would hardly be an exaggeration were one to claim that the one's theory is the antithesis of the other's. The aforementioned is evidenced in the fact that both had very different notions of human nature and, accordingly, of the rationale behind the entry of citizens into a social contract, the implications of the said contracts and the rights of the populace versus the limits of government. Indeed, the differences between the two are such that Locke ultimately emerges as a theorist for democracy and Hobbes as an advocate of authoritarian and autocratic governments. Hobbes' Leviathan may be described as a political philosophic treatise whose primary purpose is the legitimisation of the constraints which governments impose on human behaviour and their curtailment of human liberties and freedoms. In presenting his justification for the stated, Hobbes proceeds from a description of the state of nature, or pre-government societies and post government societies, effectively illustrating that within the context of the former, men may have enjoyed completed and unfettered freedom but they lived in a constant state of insecurity. In other words, and as MacPherson points out, men were completely free to do and act as they chose but because there were no limitations on freedom, they lived under the constant threat of the harm that may befall them or their property consequent to the actions of others.1 Consequently, the price of freedom was excessively high. In arguing that the price of freedom was excessively high, Hobbes embarks upon description of the state of nature. As earlier mentioned, the state of nature refers to the pre-centralised government societies. In these societies, the laws of nature, as opposed to the laws of men, ruled supreme and leadership and authority were established through brute strength and might. The state of nature, as described, was an inherently insecure and unstable one primarily because, given the absence of a centralised and legitimate government and the consequent unfettered nature of freedom, human beings were allowed to give in to, and act in accordance with their innately competitive nature. As explained by MacPherson, human nature, as defined by Hobbes was not only competitive but was excessively materialistic and power-hungry. The implication here is that men covet both power and material wealth and are driven by an innate desire to accumulate both. This desire or innate compulsion motivates transgression on the life and property of others and determines that leadership and the exercise of authority over a community be extremely temporal, lasing only as long as it takes for the leader to be usurped by another more powerful.2 In other words, the state of nature, as described, is one which fails to guarantee or establish any degree of security or legitimate and stable leadership over a community. As may be deduced from the above, Hobbes predicates his political theory on the assumption that human nature is innately competitive and accumulative, whether as regards accumulation of power or material wealth. Leshen confirms the stated by highlighting the numerous passages in Leviathan which refer to man's tendency towards impulsive action and opposed to rational thought.3 Hobbes, in other words, operates under the assumption that men are instinctual and impulsive by nature, rather than rational and deliberate and, accordingly, fail to respect the natural protective boundaries which supposedly surround the life, property and rights of others. There is no doubt that one can interpret the above as a condemnation of human nature and, indeed, many have done precisely that and, accordingly, have criticised Hobbes as having a particularly negative and pessimistic view of man. Skinner, a political scientist, for example, points out that ever sine the publication of Leviathan in the late sixteenth century, political theorists, philosophers, intellectuals and even members of the public have accused Hobbes of maintaining an unjustifiably negative view of human nature and of doing so for the explicit purpose of justifying the authoritarian governments which dominated in Europe during that era and especially in defence of the unlimited rights of kings in Britain.4 Disagreeing with Hobbes' fundamental premise regarding the brutal conditions which characterised the state of nature, and which were determined by human nature and its tendency towards the abuse of he unlimited freedoms granted it, critics have explained his assertions as being motivated by the desire to justify and legitimise the curtailment of human freedoms and the imposition of authoritarian systems of government upon communities. In direct and immediate comparison to Hobbes' somewhat jaundiced and highly pessimistic view of human nature and the state of nature, Locke interprets history in an infinitely more positive light and exhibits a greater trust in human nature. The consequence is that Locke's state of nature emerges as a much more humane and rights-driven place than Hobbes'. Hence, Locke argues that Men living together according to reason, without a common Superior on Earth, with Authority to judge between them, is properly the State of Nature. But force or a declared design of force upon the person of another where there is no common superior on Earth to appeal to for relief, is the State of War.5 As is evident from the above quote, the State of Nature is governed by rationality and within its parameters, and despite the absence of a centralised authority, people are capable of living with one another in relative peace. Peace is maintained, according to Locke, by a rational understanding of its advantageousness and the importance of avoiding War and its subsequent destructions. It is important to emphasise the fact that Locke's concession to the fact that the State of Nature was not one of permanent harmony and that disagreements within could lead to war, disputes the suggestion that Locke's state of nature was as unrealistic a utopia as was Hobbes' an unrealistic dystopia. Locke, who views the state of nature as different from and insists it much more accommodating than Hobbes's portrayal, nonetheless admits the need for contract given the facts of human and social evolution which point to the idea that there are aspects missing from human society that might be gainfully injected into a political system which is entered through contract - social contract. Indeed, Locke, as some have argued, sees the social contract as a means of securing property whether this is in the form of one's own self or one's labor and thus consequently, that it is to this purpose that he utilizes the social pact. Within the context of the stated, his argument is that in the state of nature all individuals have certain rights embodied in what he refers to as laws of nature - a position contrary to that of Hobbes since for the latter one can only talk of rights when they can be secured. These rights, however, as Locke makes clear are normative - that is, that they are indications of what ought to happen not guarantees of will happen. This being the case, and human beings what they are, the prospect of infringement is very real and it is because of this that men enter into a social contract. According to MacPherson "Locke's state of nature is a curious mixture of historical imagination and logical abstraction from civil society."6 In Hobbes' case, the state of nature is presented as one having the possibility of total license. Possibility since although the physically strong might have their way sometimes, they will also encounter the intelligent which evens the score out so that even they live in constant fear. Locke on his part presents human beings as social, rational beings that are governed by the law of nature, which is an expression of God's will for man in the state of nature. As a result of this added factor, there is a degree of order in the state of nature in his presentation as the rules (laws of nature) of this higher being (God) as well as thinking man's own intelligence indicate that peace and justice are to be preferred.7 So, while Hobbes emphasizes the utility of the social contract as a way of ensuring self-preservation - one's very life and averting chaos, Locke presents us with a slightly different argument though arriving at the same end. Within the context of the stated and in light of the differences between Locke and Hobbes, Locke does not perceive of the social contract as an agreement which individuals entered into because they were not capable of living together and, as a result, feared for their lives. Instead, Locke portrays the social contract as one in which people willingly entered, agreeing to hand over trusteeship to a central authority but never once loosing sight of the fact that the said authority derives its power from the consent and support of the masses; consent and support which may be withdrawn at any time. It is because of this definition and conceptualisation of the social contract that, The Second Treatise really "an exposition of certain necessary limitations upon political obligation."8 In other words, while Hobbes portrayed the social contract as one in which men entered out of fear for their lives and, in so doing, conceded all authority to a central body whose power is subsequently unlimited, Locke believes that the powers of governments are limited by the rights of the people and ultimately derive from mass consent/support. In the final analysis, and as evidenced in the foregoing, Locke political theory is infinitely more in tune with the reality of contemporary governments, most especially Western ones, than is Hobbes. This is hardly surprising considering that Hobbes was, to all intents and purposes, an apologist for unlimited governmental powers and, evidently, a blatant supporter of autocracy and authoritarianism. Read More