Hobbes and Lockes - Term Paper Example

9 October Contracts, Consent, and s of Nature: Hobbes versus Locke Seventeenth-century philosophers were concerned of the transition from no-state to state societies. Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government explore the transition toward governments and civil societies using the concepts of State of Nature, contracts, and consent. They want to understand how people can do away with their State of Nature, so that they can produce productive civil societies. This paper aims to compare Hobbes’ and Locke’s concepts and premises regarding consent, contracts, and states of nature. Hobbes and Locke have similarities in the justification of the formation of consent and contracts, but not in its dissolution, because of their contending views on the State of Nature. This section compares and contrasts Hobbes’ and Locke’ political theories on the nature of consent and contracts, where they have similar beliefs because they both think that consent is needed to form valid contracts. Hobbes and Locke share similar views on why consent and contracts are needed to cope with the State of Nature. Consent means that people are willing to leave the State of Nature to form a civil society that will serve communal needs and interests. Hobbes asserts that a covenant is needed to create a civil society that evades the State of Nature. He employs several terms to explain the roles of citizens and the Sovereignty in civil society. He uses the understanding of consent in relation to the status of the Sovereign as an Artificial Person by showing, that, by public consent, someone becomes an Artificial Person that has greater power than a natural person. Hobbes describes a person as someone “... whose words or actions are considered, either as his own, or as representing the words or actions of another man,” where a “Natural Person” relies on his own words, while an “Artificial Person” represents another person. The Sovereign is considered as an artificial person because he represents the people who believe in his authority. Going back to the State of Nature, a contract, however, is not valid in the Primary State of Nature because it has no laws or common power that can implement laws. Hobbes argues that the Secondary State of Nature can allow the making of a valid contract because it concerns obligations and includes God as the source of enforcing power of laws: “All therefore that can be done between two men not subject to Civil Power is to put one another to swear by the God he feareth.” Because of their belief in God, they can agree on making and following a contract. Apart from fear of the State of War, Hobbes maintain that people have to give consent to create contracts. He notes that the covenant binds people upon their recognition of the Common-wealth: “I Authorize and give up my Right of Governing myself, to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorize all his Actions in like manner.” People do not want to be completely alienated from each other despite the State of War, so it becomes relevant for them to confer authority on the Common-wealth as a binding Covenant. Their consent allows them to produce a Commonwealth and to accept their Sovereign ruler. Likewise, Locke believes that people consent to the social contract first before it becomes valid, and like Hobbes, he notes that people do not want a State of War, so they want to enter a civil society. Hobbes and Locke agree that consent is needed to form valid contracts and that when people are coerced to form contracts, these contracts are invalid. Hobbes says: “The cause of Feare, which maketh such a Covenant invalid, must be alwayes something arising after the Covenant made.” Locke confirms that consent must not be forced, or else, the contract is voided. Locke further believes that consent can be tacit or express; however, consent must be express to fully participate in the government. He stresses that “Nobody doubts but an express Consent, of any Man, entering into any Society, makes him a perfect Member of that Society, a Subject of that Government.” Consent is important because it signifies active participation in the approval of the making and implementation of laws from the Covenant of the Commonwealth. Furthermore, an express consent embodies engagement with the Commonwealth. Locke says: “Nothing can make any Man so, but his actually entering into it by positive Engagement, and express Promise and Compact.” The express consent provides legitimacy to the promise and engages people to respect and follow the contract. Express consent is further connected to the impermanence of the contract, wherein when conflicts arise between the sovereign and the people, the people can revoke the contract. They have the power to express their withdrawal of consent from the contract and the Sovereign, thereby signifying empowerment as individuals. Between these two ideas of contracts and consent, the student agrees more with Locke because consent is not permanent and it may not have Divine foundations. Hobbes believes in a State of Nature that has God’s superior authority and this will not always sit well with those who value free will more than divine predetermination, or who do not believe in God at all. Locke presents a more persuasive political theory on consent and contract because of the existence of “human will,” despite the reality that human nature can be selfish and unsympathetic of others. Furthermore, unlike Hobbes who treats social contracts as inviolable, Locke provides the possibility too that consent can be taken back. Locke enables individuals to question contracts that breach trust, thereby provide political space for democratic actions against oppressive Sovereignty. This section continues to discuss the State of Nature for Hobbes and Locke. The State of Nature is different for Hobbes and Locke to some extent because of their different beliefs on the Nature of Man, and these differences affect their political theory’s elements of consent and contracts. Hobbes describes that the State of Nature has two states: State of Nature before the Laws of Nature and the State of Nature after the Laws of Nature. Hobbes explains that the Primary State of Nature is “mere Nature,” while the other Nature refers to the Secondary State of Nature. Hobbes asserts that the Primary State of Nature is a State of War because of the innermost desire to subdue or control one another where men tend to attack one another “that is, by force, or wiles, to master the persons of all men he can, so long, till he see no other power great enough to endanger him.” He depicts that people are in a State of War because of the fear that drives them to distrust one another and the absence of Authority that keeps and promotes peace. The differences between Locke and Hobbes are in the characteristics of the State of Nature. In the Secondary State of Nature, Hobbes explains the Laws of Nature. Hobbes notes that the main difference between the two are: “RIGHT, consisteth in liberty to do, or forbeare; Whereas LAW, determineth, and bindeth to one of them: so that Law, and Right, differ as much, as Obligation, and Liberty” (Hobbes). Laws underline social obligations, while rights pertain to individual freedoms. Locke agrees that the State of War exists among people, but, while Hobbes argues that the Primary State of Nature is violent, anarchistic, and unproductive, Locke asserts that the State of Nature is calm, synchronized, and productive. Furthermore, unlike Hobbes who asserts that God has the authority to implement laws, Locke combines Divine and human components. Locke notes that Cain knew that it was wrong to kill his brother because it was “so plain was it writ in the hearts of all mankind.” However, Locke might be also referring to the inclination of people to know what is right and wrong in their hearts. Hence, Locke’s State of Nature has individualistic and free will components that are connected to human rationality. Locke’s and Hobbes’ beliefs in the State of Nature function to help justify their ideas on consents and contracts. Hobbes and Locke both believe that all people are equal in rights, and they also must equally legitimize the contracts in the State of Nature. Nonetheless, because Hobbes thinks that the State of Nature of people is selfish and competitive, he proposes contracts that are binding and reliant on the power of God to control people’s State of Nature. On the contrary, Locke proposes a contract that can be revoked because people have the State of Nature to oppose it. Locke believes that people are good and rational enough to have the will to change contracts that no longer serve their needs and interests. Locke underscores that the State of War provides the motivation for people to give consent that will validate the contract. He wrote in the Second Treatise: “Men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this Estate, and subjected to the Political Power of another, without his own Consent.” Locke shows that people can reject the contract and change it if they have the majority consent. Moreover, it appears that Locke and Hobbes agree that the State of Nature is an important reason in making civil society. Because people can compete with another in gruesome ways, they need laws and a government to manage their public affairs and to punish those who go beyond acts of decency. The State of Nature enables Locke and Hobbes to underscore the context that brings forth the validity of the social contract. If people can consent to creating a civil society, they can consent to its laws and to their leaders. Their consent means that they are willing to sacrifice some of their individual freedoms to enjoy the protection of the state and common laws. The State of Nature shows that without their consent and contracts, their lives will be always unstable and open to conflict. The main difference then between Hobbes and Locke is how Locke’s State of Nature provides greater free will for people to shape the social contract. Hobbes holds that the contract is inviolable. Locke does not believe that the contract is permanent. He says: For since it can never be supposed to be the Will of the Society, that the Legislative should have a Power to destroy that, which every one designs to secure, by entering into Society, and for which the People submitted themselves to the Legislators of their own making…By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society. Locke is essentially saying that the people are the society and the social contract. They have the will to choose their leaders and they also have the right to use their liberty in destroying governments that have violated their trust. From this student’s viewpoint, the better idea is from Locke because of its secular and autonomy dimensions. His idea can suit even those who do not believe in God, for instance, as well as those who think that people can be capable of being good and making rational decisions without relying on God’s authority alone. Locke believes that people are rational entities who can discern what is right and best for the majority. They can criticize and oust governments that fail to serve collective interests and that breach their public trust. Locke presents democratic ideals that are not hinged on Faith alone, but also on Faith in human autonomy and rationality. As human beings, they can give consent to the laws and governments that serve their interests and remove them, so that they can renew these contracts and governments. This idea of governance makes sense in the democratic society, where individuals have freedoms to challenge and change their societies. Works Cited Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. 1689. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. Read More