Contrasting the Hobbesian and Lockeian Social Contracts - Essay Example

Contrasting the Hobbesian and Lockeian Social Contracts John Locke’s “The Second Treatise of Government” and Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” both present theories for the construction of social contracts that would enable the sanctioning of a sovereign force to protect the whole. Where Locke takes a more liberal perspective, inviting the ideal that people can function by accepting a ruling authority for the greater good, Hobbes takes a similar yet opposing stance that while a ruling authority is key in the success of protecting the human race, people cannot accept such influence without giving up certain inalienable rights including their own personal sovereignty. With that said, a closer look will be taken into the contract theories of both Hobbes and Locke to determine how their different assumptions yield two distinct forms of social contracts and illuminate which political thinker’s ideal holds more value today. To begin with, John Locke has long been thought to be one of the most archetypal theorists in all of American political thinking. His ideas are so fundamental in the political landscape that it has been understood that his beliefs backed the foundations of the American Revolution in 1776. In his essay entitled “The Second Treatise of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government,” Locke details his theories for a distinct form of social contract in which he states that people would be bound by a moral code to uphold a certain dignity when dealing with others. By this code, people would do no harm to others or the property of others, but this could only be regulated by a governmental force that could provide protection from the inherent fear that not everyone would abide by the moral code set forth. Moreover, it is because of this need for protection from those of wavering morality that people would come together and form a state-sanctioned force which would umbrella a safety net upon their lives. It is important to note, however, that since this governmental faction is elected in a pseudo-democratic fashion for the need of the many that faction is only in place as long as the legitimacy of freedom remains intact. Moreover, the governmental faction is there for the protection of the whole, as an impartial judge, and will not persecute anybodyfor protecting his land or family. On the other hand, Hobbes’ “Leviathan: Or, the Matter, Form and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil” theorized that life was an anarchic mess, where people were unable to act for the good of the many and instead only focused on their own selfish needs. His moral code is similar to Locke’s only in the realm that people come together for a fundamental purpose – but that is where similarities end. Hobbes believed that people had to give up something to be part of the whole. It was regulatory without leadership, a constant realm of chaos and anarchy unless the social contract could be enforced which would essentially require everyone to act in the greater interests of the whole by giving up their own individualized sovereignty. Further, in Hobbes’ contract, people are inherently selfish beings. Unable to share the vested interests of others, people lived in an anarchic state that teetered between the needs of the one and the sacrifice of the many to achieve that fact. In this, Hobbes is almost the complete opposite of Locke in that people are unable to declare a sovereign ruling force without giving up their individualized sovereignty. People are unable to become part of the state without asserting that they no longer need any sort of individualism. Hobbes details that “therefore before the names of Just, and Unjust can have place, there must be some coercive Power, to compel men equally to the performance of their Covenants, by the terror of some punishment, greater than the benefit they expect” (Hobbes 97). Essentially, for the social contract to function in the ways Hobbes has detailed, people must be compelled by some threatening force to act in the rational self interest of everyone and to comply as a whole. What is more, the social contract enacts a commonwealth society in which every man is entitled to the same amount as any other, where “all men [have the same] right to all things” (Hobbes 98). This would essentially end the class system making every man as equal as any other. In many ways, this might sound like the perfect, utopian society, one in which every man is equal and every man is entitled to the same property and wealth. Hobbes intends for all men to be equal, to share in the wealth of the many, so that no one man be left out. It is, essentially, a great idea for those who cannot do for themselves. To be provided for without having to do the work, to be treated and regarded as equal without literally being so. However, this state of mind—and that’s really what this comes down to—is irrational and draining in regards to the social construct as a whole. Also, Hobbes’ and Locke’s forms of social contract are both crucially dependent upon the assumptions each makes about what humans would be like absent a ruling authority or government. Locke makes the distinction where Hobbes cannot by making it clear that every man is entitled to equality but that they are not entitled to the same property and wealth without first earning such. Locke writes that “no one having more than another…should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection” (Locke 4). Locke’s argument is similar to Hobbes’ only in the fact that all men have the inalienable right for equality. What Locke offers, however, is that all men, while having the right to be equal, still must put forth the effort to attain the same status and wealth of other men. In a society where every man is regarded equal, men of value would no longer strive to perfect their skills or to make any improvements within their world because it will just be taken from them and distributed among the many who have not done anything to deserve it – people, who will take for the sake of taking and not appreciate what they have received “and therefore many times the injury is received by one man, when the damage reboundeth to another” (Hobbes 101). Fundamentally, the man of talent will be injured by the man who refuses to work because he believes he is deserving wealth, just like every other man, without having to put in the same effort. It is here where Locke defines that all men must understand the “great maxims of justice and charity” (Locke 5). Men can be under a ruling authority and have the right to equality in all ways, but that men must also look out for his other men and continue to strive to be his very best for the good of himself and, thus, the whole. Further, Locke has defined that “all men may be restrained from invading others’ rights and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which wills the peace and preservation of all mankind” (Locke 6). It is within the Law of Nature that men have a fundamental need for their own personal self preservation, which can sometimes exclude the needs of the many in the righteous implementation of personal values. But within Locke’s social contract, men observe the right for their own individuality and equality while still maintaining the values and protection of the many. In this, every man can support himself and share his wealth with society, but no one man is entitled to another man’s wealth or property. Man must earn what he deserves. What Hobbes has detailed is a welfare society, one in which people who may or may not be deserving, are given handouts so they can function within the same society as the others who work extremely hard to get where they are. More than that, those people given handouts will no longer strive for anything more than they have already received, because their life is at a certain comfort level and they are already being treated as though they deserve it. Where, in fact, they might not deserve wealth or property at all and are taking from those who have worked hard at their skills to attain the property and wealth that they are capable of earning. This welfare mentality, one meant to provide for all because all men are equal, does more to hurt the whole than to help it. Furthermore, by providing for all because men are equal, takes away the value in achieving greater skills or knowledge to improve one’s lot in life. Where Hobbes details an almost dystopian society of anarchic values, Locke’s is more convincing on a fundamental level. It can be said that people without a governmental force would be anarchic and refuse to look out for the state of human society as a whole, but this is decidedly untrue. In this, Hobbes is assuming that people are devoid of humanity and cannot act for the greater good without being told by a sovereign force to do so. The state of society could reach this point, ultimately, but the current state of things is that people do still have that spark of humanity that allows them to function as a group without giving up any sort of sovereignty at all. People can function as individuals within a society, and, at the same time, as a cohesive political community that values the self-interest of every member without sacrificing anything of the individual. In the end, a political community would still be inherently anarchic if it was based upon Hobbes’ theory of mutual self-interest dictating the more rational needs of the many. In fact, a political community with values such as these would be strong only momentarily. For instance, in a society where the focus is on the inherent selfish values of the one versus the many, issues would ultimately be ignored and people who were unfortunate enough to not be part of the sovereign force would find themselves in a world that is almost unable to function. Acting in the self interest of the one would allow for some, perhaps even desired, changes to be made, but in the end, the whole would be excluded and the political community would have an internal flaw of irrational self interest. Overall, John Locke’s “The Second Treatise of Government” and Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” both present theories for the construction of social contracts that would enable the sanctioning of a sovereign force to protect the good of mankind as a whole. Locke takes the more rational perspective, illuminating the need for a ruling authority while still providing for a society that is capable of functioning and growing without hindering any class. On the other hand, Hobbes has detailed a similar yet opposing stance that while a ruling authority is a key element, people cannot function individually, and that one must be treated as everyone. After taking a closer look into the contract theories of both Hobbes and Locke to determine how their different assumptions yield two distinct forms of social contracts, it is clear that both have sound ideas for a functioning society. However, while Hobbes’ ideals for a common-wealth society hold certain advantages to the poor, granting them the same wealth as the upper classes, the social contract that he offers is irrational and would not serve the needs of the whole. In this, Locke’s theory is inherently more valuable and it is clear why the ideologies of the American Revolution sought their fundamentals within Locke’s writing. Not only did Locke provide a social contract, but he laid out the foundations for a working world in which every man is equal, yet relevant, and every man works toward the greater good of the whole under a ruling authority capable of enhancing and protecting the needs of the many. Works Cited. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: Or, the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiasticall and Civill. Ed. A. R. Waller. Cambridge, England: Cambridge UP, 1904. Print. Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government. Ed. Thomas P. Peardon. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1952. Print. Read More