Hobbes' and Locke's Understanding of the State of Nature and of Natural Law - Essay Example

Hobbes and Locke: A Treatise on the State of Nature Introduction Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher in the 17th century, is generally considered as one of the most remarkable political thinkers. Hobbes is well-known for his sophisticated intellectual work, the social contract theory (Christman 2002). He is controversial for having applied the social contract treatise to reach the surprising conclusion that people have to surrender to the power and authority of a supreme and powerful ruler. His conclusion was reached due to his idea that a state of war is the state of nature. He thought there has to be a supreme ruler to regulate and limit humanity’s state of nature (Christman 2002). John Locke was also regarded as one of the most remarkable political thinkers in seventeenth-century Europe. But defiantly, his philosophical arguments differed significantly from Hobbes. Locke perceived mankind as naturally good and kind. He argued that people could cope with and survive well with others, but a government was needed (Christman 2002). The government would merely possess enough power granted by the people. The perception of Locke on the government was founded only on serving the greater good or the public interest. He detested having an unlimited, supreme authoritative government (Christman 2002). The objective of this paper is to compare Thomas Hobbes’s and John Locke’s arguments about the state of nature. Hobbes and Locke The Academic American encyclopaedia (1994) compares Hobbes and Locke in this manner: Locke’s considerable importance in political thought is better known. As the first systematic theorist of the philosophy of liberalism, Locke exercised enormous influence in both England and America. In his Two Treatises of Government (1690), Locke set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right—and sometimes the duty—to withdraw their support and even to rebel. Locke opposed Thomas Hobbes’s view that the original state of nature was “nasty, brutish, and short,” and that individuals through a social contract surrendered—for the sake of self-preservation—their rights [...] (Academic American Encyclopaedia 1994, 388). Locke dealt with the assertion of Hobbes that a state of war was the state of nature, though he did not relate this assertion to Hobbes. He disproved it by citing existing and actual historical cases of individuals in a state of nature. For this intent he considered any individuals who are not under the authority of a common arbitrator to resolve conflicts or disputes, individuals who may justifiably take steps themselves to punish criminals, just as in a state of nature (Academic American Encyclopaedia 1994). Thomas Hobbes was evidently a monarchist. He showed no doubts with supreme rulers per se. He was certainly moved by the English Civil War, which is a brutal, chaotic period in England, when he formulated his theory of the state of nature. In the opening of Leviathan, he revealed his perceptions of mankind (Hobbes 2008): For seeing life is but a motion of limbs, the beginning whereof is in some principal part within; why may we not say, that all automata (engines that move themselves by springs and wheels as doth a watch) have an artificial life? For what is the heart, but a spring; and the nerves, but so many strings; and the joints, but so many wheels, giving motion to the whole body, such as was intended by the artificer? (p. 1) Therefore, human beings are just deception; they are artificial. Life is nothing but a movement of these artificial beings. Moreover, human senses are attributable to the “external body, or object, which presseth the organ proper to each sense, either immediately... or mediately,” (Hobbes 2008, 4) and these forces bring about reactions in the interior organs, such as the heart or brain, which compose the senses. “And as pressing, rubbing, or striking the eye, makes us fancy a light; and pressing the ear, produceth a din; so do the bodies also we see, or hear, produce the same by their strong, though unobserved action” (Hobbes 2008, 4). Then, dreams or imaginations, and even memories, are manifestations of these senses disintegrating with time. Hobbes obviously takes a quite materialistic perception of nature and of man. It is factual that he argues that “there is no doubt, but God can make unnatural apparitions: But that he does it so often, as men need to fear such things, more than they fear the stay, or change, of the course of nature, which he also can stay, and change; is no point of Christian faith” (Hobbes 2008, 9). Therefore, theoretically, he might believe in the existence of a Supreme Being, but Hobbes obviously puts forth an exceptionally imperfect, singular, amazing God, a God who entirely keeps away from nature. Then, Hobbes thinks that people are manipulative, affective robots, interested only in pursuing their own interests and good. Moreover, he thinks: [n]ature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of body, and mind; as that though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit, to which another may not pretend, as well as he (Hobbes 2008, 84). And believing that there are, within the confines of human nature, three primary roots of conflict: competition, diffidence, and glory-seeking, Hobbes assumes that in the state of nature, or in a state that people would survive and live in with no government, “[w]hatsoever... is consequent to a state of war would also be consequent to the state of nature” (Hobbes 2008, 84). Therefore, a state of war between people was the state of nature: In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (Hobbes 2008, 86). Hobbes believes this state is very monstrous and detestable as to give reason for anything to keep away from it. Hence, his Leviathan developed from a conceptual ‘social contract’ agreed by people in a state of nature; it is a contract grounded on reason and self-centredness, created to avoid the unsure, dreadful state of nature. The immediate destiny of the work of Hobbes was demotion to the beacons of academic condemnation; and Hobbes, personally, discovered himself labelled an atheist (Christman 2002). On the other hand, John Locke, in a number of ways, was even more revolutionary than Hobbes. Since while the theory of the social contract introduced by Hobbes advocates the concept of supreme monarchy, Locke firmly rebuffs all absolute monarchy (Christman 2002). Locke’s human nature is not the violently aggressive, insecure, glory-seeking machine that Hobbesian human nature is, which, if played out by Hobbesian natural human beings, generates the horrible state of war that merely the united movement of a sovereign can prevent. For Locke, the state of nature “is a state of perfect freedom for men to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature; without asking leave, or depending on the will of any other man” (Locke 2004, 4). Furthermore, it is quite similar to Hobbes’s state of nature, “[a] state... of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another” (Locke 2004, 4). Although this state is independent, it is not absolutely free (Locke 2004, 133): [Man] has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use that its bare preservation calls for it. 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, that being equal and independent; no one ought to harm one another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. For men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not another’s pleasure. And being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours (Locke 2004, 133). Therefore, there is a law of nature, or reason. This law of nature when taking into account the divine roots of humanity reminds the consciousness that all people are equal and, thus, have no right to exploit any other individual. Locke extends the assertion by stating that while an individual is “bound to preserve himself, he ought to preserve the rest of mankind, as long as his own preservation comes not into competition,” (Locke 2004, 133) and that this, as well, is manifested in reason. And because an individual has, innate in himself/herself, the right to self-preservation, s/he has also the innate powers and authorities of government (Locke 2004). Specifically, in the state of nature, before the existence of any government, the law of nature proves that the executive and legislative authority lies with the individual, grounded on his/her right to self- and property-preservation, and grounded on the belief that no person is to live at the expense of another. Hence, in the state of nature, every time anyone announces himself/herself “to quit the principles of nature” (Locke 2004, 133) by encroaching upon the life, liberty or property of another, such an individual is removed from the power of such principles and forgoes their protection. Then, by reason of the law of nature, the injured individual possesses the privilege to mete out justice against the criminal. This is injustice as far as institutional forces are concerned; it is justice under the right of self-preservation or self-defence. At this point, such an offence is referred to by Locke as the state of war. It is, to the person, a deviant state; it is independent and different from the state of nature (Locke 2004). Every time the state of war occurs, afterwards, the rational law of nature is breached, the wrongdoer lives outside the defence of that law, and the injured person has the fair right to mete out revenge or take protective steps. When that dispute is settled, the state of war stops, and the state of nature continues (Locke 2004). However, in this state of nature, the defence of life and property is managed by every person, and it could become very difficult to repeatedly enforce that defence. Hence, Locke claims, people agreed upon a social contract, entrusting that duty to a government chosen by them, while they preserve their right. This, according to Locke, is the root of genuine government (Locke 2004). It is primarily due to this that Locke firmly rejected monarchy, because the monarch is a figure against whom there is an absence of secular authority to appeal to. The absolute ruler situates himself/herself outside of the rational law of nature by virtue of his/her status. To Locke, therefore, modern monarchies cannot be regarded as civil societies, but different demonstrations of the state of war. The rational law of nature, in this case, required that the state of war be corrected by opposition, mutiny or rebellion (Christman 2002). Conclusion Although Hobbes and Locke have divergent arguments about the state of nature, they actually reach comparable assumptions, even though it may not be clearly obvious. Hobbes concluded that human beings in a state of nature would consistently end up with a destructive state of war, and that human life would be short and dreadful, and civilization would be almost unattainable. However, Locke views a rational law of nature that encompasses human life, and views human beings as conscious, although possibly faintly, of that law. I find Locke’s arguments more compelling and persuasive than Hobbe’s. Locke was able to successfully show that state of nature is not lawless. But at times it can produce the state of war in which the rights of one individual are threatened or aggressively violated by another. References Academic American Encyclopaedia. Vol. 1. 1994. Christman, J. Social and Political Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction. London: Routledge, 2002. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Forgotten Books, 2008. Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2004. Read More