Hobbes State of Nature - Essay Example

The English Revolution (1642-88) set different thinkers and philosophers think and react differently. Their reactions were based on their own life experiences and the philosophical outlook. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) were two such outstanding thinkers of their time who argued against each other. Their arguments were influenced by their historical experiences. They were both social contract theorists and natural law theorists but beyond this, their views differed on the state of nature, the social contract, and the system of government. “The ‘State of Nature’ is a term in political philosophy used in social contract theories to describe the hypothetical condition of humanity before the state’s foundation and its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force.” (Wikipedia, 2006). In simpler words it is the condition before the rule of positive law comes into being or a way to discuss the conditions of society and government. Thinkers during the 17th and 18th century believed that whatever good things one had in the state of nature should not be lost when one entered into society. They evaluated the governments based on this condition. Locke believed that in the state of nature men mostly kept their promises. American frontier is an example of people in the state of nature, where property rights and (for the most part) peace existed (James, n.d.). He believed that the state of nature was good. People are in a state of nature when it is socially acceptable to punish for wrongdoings done against you. Hence, if the government could not do as much for people as they did for themselves in the state of nature, the government could be invalidated. Hobbes’ idea of the state of nature concern power and security and not the moral obligations. He believed that in state of nature people could behave badly towards each other. He compared the English Revolution to the ‘state of nature’, which was brutal. He had a very negative view of the Revolution and this convinced him that kingship was essential. Hobbes opposed Locke’s view that people will generally follow the law of nature because they are naturally rational and not given to constant war. Locke believed that government should be from the people and that it should be limited so as not to violate the natural rights of people. “Locke states that the entire population has the right to punish an offender so that he will not commit the crime again and so that others will be deterred from moral law breaking.” (Wikipedia, 2006). Locke opposed Thomas Hobbess view that the original state of nature was “nasty, brutish, and short” (James). Because Locke believed that human mind is a blank slate. All members staying within a society are assumed to agree to terms of a social contract and a violation of this contract signifies an attempt to return to the state of nature. Hobbes was of the opinion that without a society we would live in a state of nature with unlimited natural freedom. This freedom would also grant the freedom to harm all who threaten ones own self-preservation. To avoid this situation, there should be a civil contract, which would require some freedom to be surrendered and a head of the society has to be accepted and honored. Hobbes asserts that without subjection to a common power, men are necessarily at war. Locke felt in doing this we surrendered our rights to ourselves in return for impartial justice. We must retain the right to life and liberty and gain an impartial protection to our property. He argued that absolute power should not be granted. If the head of the state remains in a state of war with his subjects, people have a right to kill such rulers and their servants. Hobbes disagreed, as he believed that if we follow instructions, you have the right not to be killed. Hobbes believed in absolute kingship and argued that the king can do no wrong. The ruler’s will define the good and the evil, the lawful and the unlawful. Hobbes contended that people in a state of nature ceded their individual rights in order to make sovereignty, retained by the state, in return for their protection and a more functional society, so that social contract evolves simply out of pragmatic self-interest. For Locke, legitimate civil government is instituted by the explicit consent of those governed. As well, those who make this agreement transfer to the civil government their right of executing the law of nature and judging their own case. Lockes contract was for a judge while Hobbes contract was for a master (James). In regards to the preferred system of government, Hobbes preferred monarchy mainly because he believed that there should only be one government. He was in favor of unlimited power for the state as he felt it was necessary to end all conflicts and contentions. People in a society will come in conflict and it is the duty of the head of the state to end such conflicts. Locke argued that a government should work within the limits of the contract. According to him, all legitimate political power derives solely from the consent of the governed to entrust their “lives, liberties and possessions” to the oversight of the community as a whole (Kemerling, 2002). He was convinced that when the society interferes with the property interests of the citizens, they have a right to protect themselves by withdrawing their consent. Rebellion against such a government alone can restore the fundamental rights. Hobbes preferred system however, does not presuppose chaos; it presupposes a form of enlightenment, while Locke opined that possibility of revolution is a permanent feature of any properly formed civil society. There is a striking similarity in the two philosophers’ thoughts. Locke believed that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of the citizen. He further argued that revolution is justified against a government when it violates the natural rights of a citizen; Hobbes maintained revolution is never justified unless the government fails reasonably to assure the maintenance of the lives of its citizens from danger INTERNAL to the government/society created. This means they were similar in their approach to the use of reason and not divine rights to justify or oppose absolute kingship. Locke’s political philosophy emerged when the English Civil War was in full bloom, at a time when the English society had no proper direction (Wikiepedia). His political philosophy was expressed through Two Treatises of Civil Government which was published after the Glorious Revolution of 1968. Through this he distinguishes between the legitimate and the illegitimate civil governments. Locke characterized the state of nature in moral terms, while Hobbes characterized it in social or institutional terms. This too is again borne out of their personal experiences of the war and the society during that period. Locke had also experienced during his time that Rome and Venice were in a state of nature shortly before they were officially founded. Locke was the seventeenth century precursor of classic liberalism, and Hobbes was the seventeenth century precursor of modern totalitarianism (James). From this review, we can see that Hobbes and Locke had incredibly different views on some respectively significant issues, and it was the difference in their opinions that has had an everlasting affect on such things as political science and philosophy, safe to say, for all time. These two philosophers brought ideals and relations into the equation which had never been thought of before, and some of which are now considered to be dramatically altering to life altogether. Nevertheless, the modern state is far more Hobbesian than Lockean, but far from the absolutist government that Hobbes commended. References: D, J. (n.d.). Locke vs Hobbes. Retrieved May 22, 2006, < http://jim.com/hobbes.htm> Humanities. (n.d.). Hobbes’ State of Nature. Retrieved May 22, 2006 http://humanities.uchicago.edu/faculty/mgreen/JuniorSeminarF03/Notes/HobbesSN.shtml> Kemerling, G. (2002). Locke: Social Order. Retrieved May 22, 2006, Locke. (n.d.). Locke. Retrieved May 13, 2006, Read More