Morality and the Good Life - Essay Example

Both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke argue that prior to formed societies, the meaning of the of nature was important to grasp. Hobbes argues thatthe state of nature is a war of all against all. He maintains therefore, that societies are formed in order to protect themselves against each other because in a state of nature, all is chaos. Locke argues that in a state of nature, all individuals have a natural right to whatever it is they obtain, so long as they labour upon it. In a state of nature, all individuals have equal rights against eachother. The following will examine the state of nature in both philosophers, and in turn, it will be argued that Hobbes view of nature leads to a position that defends a strong sovereign or monarchy, by contrast, Lockes more egalitarian view of nature leads to a more democratic society. The egoism in man, is a presupposition of Hobbes which leads him to the description of nature as a constant power struggle. In a natural state, that is, in a physical state, men are generally equal in strength, mental capacity and experience (Solomon, Ed, 1992, p. 178). He asserts that everyone has a natural and equal right to everything. However, if man was without government the conflict from desire would lead to a state of war of every man against every man: Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man(Solomon, Ed, 1992, p. 179). Fortunately, however, Hobbes argues that "passion" in the form of a "fear of death", and the desire to live a long and peaceful life, has allowed man to use "reason" in order to form laws which combined, provide the basis or foundation of a civil society, allowing man, therefore, to escape the state of nature-- the universal "strife": “The Passions that encline men to Peace, are Feare of Death ... and Reason suggesteth convenient articles of Peace, upon which men may be drawn to agreement.(Solomon, Ed, 1992, p. 180) It is at this point, that the political philosophy of Hobbes can now be understood, given that the foundations have been established, namely, that if the end of man is security, then the state itself is necessary. In particular, for the purposes of securing peace, Hobbes argues that of the three forms of government, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, monarchy is the most effective at realizing this end of a peaceful society. In keeping with the notion that the state itself, is a like a human body-- or, one might refer to the state in this sense, as the political body. Monarchy is like the mind of a body, which rationally maintains the desires in a sense of harmony. The desires, in terms of the analogy of the state with the body, amount to the people who the monarch is sovereign over. Hobbes argues that for the purposes of peace, monarchy is necessary. The interests of the monarchy and his subjects, Hobbes argues are exactly alike, thus, what is good for the monarchy (the mind), is also good for the people (the body), given that they are all connected with the aim of self-maintenance: “It is manifest, that men who are in absolute liberty, may, if they please, give Authority to One man, to represent them everyone.” (Solomon, Ed, 1992, p. 184) Thus, if the Monarch is rich and secure, so too is the people, given that his wealth is derived from theirs. Further, there will be no argument and disagreement in making decisions, and that decisions will stand more firm. As an analogy again, with the body, one could see for example, that when someone is confused or in a state of inner turmoil mentally, often the body suffers as a result. If there is only one decision maker, namely, the monarch, then there is no suffering amidst the body as a whole. In terms of fear then, which was raised earlier in the context of Hobbes view of human nature, or his psychology, Hobbes argues that rather than fearing the sovereign which is reasonable and the regulator of the passions-- the body should fear itself, or each other. Desires are what is in conflict, and members of a society under a monarchy thus have more to fear from each other, given that everyone is acting out of their own self-interest, than they do of the monarch: “But in this case, they subject themselves to him they are afraid of.”(Solomon, Ed, 1992, p. 183) Thus, the Common-wealth is a body that is the result of a covenant made by a group of people motivated by fear. The fear of each other as egoistic, or passion driven individuals, leads them to form an association which regulates them. This association is based on the principle that reason can best achieve, and maintain peace and survival. Thus, if reason is manifest in one figure, then there will not be conflict within the regulating aspect of the Common-wealth, as history, for example, testifies is the case. In the Second Treatise, John Locke outlines in some detail a notion of ‘natural right’. In the state of nature, he argues, humans are essentially free, and further, within the state of nature, all “men” or humans are equal. Human freedom, however, is not a state of licence and he argues that the law of nature is ordained by God from which humans should or ought to regulate their behaviour. This law of nature gives humans their natural rights, and within this, we all have a right to life and a right to some liberty, as long, however as our actions do not infringe upon the natural rights of others: “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 all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions” (Locke, 1980, p. 8). Before the creation of civil society, or in the state of nature, man has a right to amass or acquire private property only in so far he has a use for it. For example, a man has a right to as much food as his family might need, but he has no right to a surplus of food which might perhaps spoil. However, the state of nature is in practise for Locke, unstable in its essence, and this follows from his claim that humans, unless coerced, often infringe on the natural rights of others (Locke, 1980, p. 10). It is soon apparent in the Second Treatise, that in order that humans or a community enjoy their natural rights, and for the sake of creating stability, they must join together and form a ‘social contract’. The function or the purpose of this contract, is to form a civil society in which humans will maintain their natural rights, within a government that has been established to enforce laws for the end of protecting those rights, and in turn, to adjudicate or legislate disputes. Thus, the ruler serves the purpose or the function of providing the conditions under which citizens can enjoy these rights, and if the king either violates the rights of individual citizens or fails to provide the conditions under which citizens may enjoy their rights, then, the people are entitled to remove him. On issues that do not threaten any natural rights, Locke argues that majority opinion should prevail. Locke argues that the right to land is only guaranteed insofar as a particular individual can labour upon it (Locke, 1980, p. 21). By this, it is implied in two senses: first, he argues that someone who “tills” a particular parcel of land, is by all rights the owner to it, but second, that one should not have more land than one can manage in the first person, so to speak. Although this argument must be understood within the previous outlined context of natural right, this argument serves another end. By having private property determined or allotted in accordance with the land in question being cultivated, this is not merely natural, but serves the further purpose of promoting and facilitating individuals who are “industrious and rational” (Locke, 1980, p. 21). In other words, there is a built in assumption, as with a liberal democratic or market driven economy, that one of the best means of promoting a general good, is to reward those who are, as individuals, industrious. In turn, the consequence or result of this idea of rewarding labour, so to speak, is a certain type of progress which ensues, and such a progress is measured or determined in terms of cultivating rational individuals. One of the important corollaries to this ‘universal’ natural right to the ownership of property, is that he thought that there really was enough land such that everyone could own a parcel of land. Locke writes: “that every man should have as much as he could make use of, would hold still in the world, without straitening any body; since there is land enough in the world to suffice double the inhabitants” (Locke, 1980, p. 23). What was demonstrated was two-fold: first, that private property, according to Locke, must be understood as a natural right, but that such a natural right is egalitarian to the extent that all citizens have an equal right to private, if and only if, they use that for the purposes of cultivation. Further, Locke did not agree that a surplus should be allowed, given that one persons surplus essentially creates an imbalance --- that is, the idea of having more than one can use, creates a situation where one persons natural rights are in a ‘natural conflict’, so to speak, with the rights of an other. With Hobbes, the state of nature was not a matter of a condition of right, but a condition of war. Individuals act egoistically, and therefore form a society to protect themselves against each other. While both philosophers view a state of nature as the prior condition for society, Hobbes response to the state of nature is far less egalitarian and democratic than Lockes notion of a sovereign. And, this impacts their respective responses to nature. Work’s Cited: Locke, John. (1980). Second Treatise of Government. Edited by C.B. Macpherson. Indianapolis: Hackett. Solomon, Robert C. (Ed.), (1992). Morality and the Good Life. An Introduction to Ethics Through Classical Sources. New York: McGraw-Hill. How the view of nature shapes political responses. A comparison of Hobbes and Locke Read More