Comparison between Hobbes and Lockes Social Contract Theories - Research Paper Example

Running head: Comparison between Hobbes’ and Locke’s Social Contract Theories Abstract Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were great philosophers in the 17th century during the civil war between the king and the monarchs against the parliamentarians over leadership and authority. These philosophers were famous social contract theorists, natural theorists and law theorists. In their social contract theories, Hobbes and Locke argue on how people should be governed, to what extent and whether being governed is actually necessary. They tried using the theories to create a compromise between the two parties. However, they argued it all differently and this created the differences between their arguments (Friend, 2004). In this paper, both contrast theories will be discussed separately, though focusing on the same issues to give a better understanding of the two and how they differ. Introduction Kelly defines social contract as the principle where the state is mainly there to provide what the subjects under the state want. In addition to that, he states that in this contract, the people of the state are the ones that give all the power that the state takes pleasure in and it is upon thee same people to decide whether to grant or hold back the power. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke lived at a fundamental time in England’s history. They were there between 1642 and 1648, during the 17th century when the king and the monarchists, his followers, waged civil war against the Parliamentarians (Donald, 2010). At that time, power was held by the strongest people in the state and they could use their power as they wished and at their convenience (Kelly, 2010). Concisely, this war was on because the King and the Monarchists wanted the authority of the Monarch to prevail, while on the other hand, the Parliamentarians fought for an increase in power in their quasi-democratic group. Hobbes’ theory argues that we are all equal with equal mental abilities and hence, we all can make the same judgments. Locke argues otherwise. In addition, unlike all other philosophers, Hobbes argues that man is not a social animal by nature while Locke argues against that, claiming that by all means, man is naturally a social animal. These two arguments form the basis of their theories (Donald, 2010). Thomas Hobbes’ Social Contract Theory During the war mentioned above, the parliamentarians wanted power to be shared between them and the king as per the democratic view at the time. However, unlike what parliamentarians fought for, the king believed that power was divine and was from God and so should not be shared, as this would be disobeying God. Hobbes took the stand that power should not be shared between the king and the parliament and in so doing rejected both the king’s stand and the stand of the parliament. He argued that political responsibility should be determined by the needs of the citizens of the particular nation who are in all assumed equal and none had authority over another. He claimed that the society could only stay alive if the monarch, which he referred to as ‘sovereign’, holds complete power (Friend, 2004). He also gave reasons as to why he preferred monarchy to any other government. This he did to argue that in all forms of government, the government, regardless of its form, should have absolute governance for it to avoid civil war. According to him, power must not be shared or be limited. This is because the power to set rules and make decisions in all aspects including legislation, tax paying and even wars, are linked in one way or another. Hence, if we chose to divide powers, and hence divide such, a loss of either might have a high chance of ruining the others (Lloyd, 2008). In Hobbes’ book, Leviathan, he insists that if the people must have a government, they should form a state of government with limited powers, which will only work to protect the subjects. He insisted that giving the state all the power would in turn lead to relinquished rights to that power when it came to the subjects. In other words, the subjects would have no right to that authority and hence, people would pay the price of giving the state that power in pursuit of protection. Having being there when there was a major dissolution in politics leading to the civil war, Hobbes was on a mission to discover a way that we could have a form of government, which was not prone to demolition from within. In his philosophical project, he campaigned for a supreme regime, as this is the least prone to dissolution. He however states that though people did not need a government, any form of government would be far much better than none, if that would prevent civil war from recurring. Much as he says that, he was still convinced that an absolute government would not face dissolution, leading to civil war, unlike one that was not fixed (Lloyd, 2008). This statement clearly indicated that he was not for power sharing at all costs. Infact, he went further to give suggestions on how stability in this supreme governance would work to prevent anything that might undermine it. For instance, he suggested that it be made a law that subjects should not argue against or rebel this government, but instead ensure political obedience. This is because the absolute authority is the only one who dictates right or wrong and hence the ruler/ king cannot go wrong as his commands dictate good and evil. He assumed that this would in turn lead to peace in their country (Hobbes, 2008). According to Hobbes, the state of nature is the reason for all responses from human beings. Infact, he goes further to defend this from a scientific point of view where he argues that everything including human beings exist as a result of matter, which is always in motion. In an effort to explain human behavior, he says that activities like walking and any other form of movement come about because of contacts between our bodies and other human or non- human bodies. This in turn leads to several effects on our bodies eventually giving way to what we consider human activities. In other words, he states that human beings are machines, which are difficult to understand, but react to the world’s stimuli (Friend, 2004). With this, he argued that human beings were continually at war with each other and having a government would not change this at all. According to Lloyd, Hobbes used the state of nature theory to bring forth the argument that a nation could easily survive without the government. He invites us to think of having a life without the government, hence making life to be in ‘a state of nature’. In using this theory, he asks us to imagine a life with no governance, where everyone makes his or her own decision and acts as the judge whenever any case arises. He argues that we are all the same and each of us is capable of making sound decisions, hence every decision will be just and fair (Lloyd, 2008). In his Social Contract Theory, Hobbes states that the government is normally as a result of a voluntary alliance for its subjects. According to him, human beings do not need a governed society. However, he is fast to state that we could do much better if one did exist. Infact, he believes that the existence of the governing state would assure people of a better life as compared to the current one. Much as he thought that allowing the government to rule the society is an unnatural act, he argued that allowing government leadership is a reasonable step for members of the society. He argues that every on is equal in his or her mental and physical ability. Therefore, his theory argues that no one can dominate others, as we all are capable of giving equal judgment in all cases. This theory claims that the terms ‘good’ or ‘bad’ are used for people’s individual preferences because they are not sure about their future and hence the reason why people turn to religious beliefs even though it depends on the religion one chooses to follow as every religion has its own beliefs (Lloyd, 2008). From the law of nature, which according to Hobbes proved that we are all against each other every day, thus every one is led by his/her own reasoning; he points out that man can use anything to protect himself from his enemies. From this, he derives a second law that it is necessary for a man to live in peace with others, but only if the other party is willing to do so. If the other party is not willing to lay down his or her rights, then there is no need for one to follow the Bible teaching that one should do unto other as he or she would like it to be done unto them (Hobbes, 2008). This means that it is upon us to choose how to live. If we all choose to live peacefully with others, then there would be no fighting amongst us, as no one would be preventing the other from enjoying his or her rights. In his fight, Hobbes asserts that we do not have our rights by nature. Instead, he argues that our rights are conceded to the governing authority and this is in return for our security. He goes on to say that whatever the state decides to do is just by all means and every subject is a making of the state and reflects what the leader wants (Donald, 2010). John Locke’s Theory Locke took the social contract a step further. He insisted on the duty of an individual and asserted that the revolution was more than just the right way to go. He added that it would act as an obligation if the government abused the authority given to it (Kelly, 2010). Unlike Thomas Hobbes, John Locke’s theory was mainly focused against absolute authority. He argued this in all angles of authority ranging from the government to the church. He believed that people should be allowed to reason with an aim of finding the truth to determine the lawful obligations of institutions. This, he believed, would in turn maximize flourishing on individuals and the society, when it comes to material and spiritual matters (Uzgalis, 2007). In addition, he argued that the state of nature was very unbearable and hence, human beings could even go to the extent of submitting to authority to run away from it. However, Locke still chose to make use of Hobbes’s method. In this, he uses it quite differently to generate different argumentative results. He argued against the notion that political leadership was sovereign and went ahead to create his own views on the objectives of the civil government (Friend, 2010). According to John Locke, the state of nature still stands but it can be tamed to bring morality using what he refers to as the ‘law of nature’. In his theory, Locke does not refute that the state of nature, as indicated by Hobbes, is natural for humans and it provides for complete freedom for one to run his or her life as he or she sees best. However, Locke does not support the argument that one also has the freedom to do whatever he or she pleases in one’s own interest without considering others. According to him, the law of nature is God-given and it is the driving force behind morality among human beings. This law commands that we should not cause others any harm especially in matters pertaining to life, freedom, wellbeing or even what one owns. Locke argues that the state of nature is a state of freedom where one has the liberty to what one wants, but when the law of nature comes in, it gives restrictions that will enable people to live together in peace. In conclusion, Locke refers to the state of nature as the state of war, unless the law of nature governs it. Noting that some might take it upon themselves to execute justice, he saw it quite unfair that one might decide to kill a thief even though he has not harmed the person in question. He refuted the state of nature citing examples and it was for this reason that he regarded citizens who do not answer to a common judge to be in a state of nature (Donald, 2010). When it came to governance, unlike Hobbes, Locke fought for political power. He did not support absolute governance unlike Hobbes. He defined political power as the mandate to set rules, which also include death penalties, or less, as an act of justice. He also adds that it is important to include the community in executing the set laws. This he claims will in turn protect property and commonwealth from external harm, all for the benefit of the public. In a way, he is for power sharing. In an act to support this, he asserts that power comes from God according to an individual’s level in authority. He claims that every power should be different from another, depending on the situation and the relationship between the involved. For instance, he suggests that the power of a judge over a subject be different from that of a father over his children, in turn leading to different levels of power, depending on the relationship between the involved (Donald, 2010). Donald also points out that in matters of leadership, Locke asserts that a leader who fights for sovereignty in power will put others at a constant state of war with him and it becomes worse when he violates his authority. When it comes to violation of the social contract by rulers who have absolute power, Locke insists that we have a right to murder them together with their servants. In his theory, it is evident that Locke believed so much in God unlike Hobbes, who believed that religion was a scapegoat for people who needed to define morality. According to him, we were all God’s creation and hence, we all belong to Him. He uses this to assert that no one has the right to get rid of or to destroy himself or anyone in his possession and so anyone who murders or commits suicide ends up going against Gods’ divine intention for us as the end of one’s life should rely fully on God and not man. In this effect, he argues that we all should have the right to freedom, life, healthy living and even possession, as they are what are deemed ‘natural rights’ and the means for survival. This in turn means that no one has the right to take anyone’s life and if all the natural means are available, only God will have control over life (Uzgalis, 2007). Locke’s theory also covers slavery, he defines it as being under the complete power of another person, and to be a legitimate slave, one has to be defeated in war. He adds that in slavery, there is a continuous fight where the winner prolongs the taking away of the slave’s life but instead chooses to use him. According to him, slavery only ceases when the conqueror and the slave come into terms where there is obedience from one side and limited authority on the other side (Uzgalis, 2007). Locke believed that human beings have rights by nature and this does not depend on the state at all. Infact, he insists that while we have our own rights, the only part the state can play is to make sure that justice prevails in every situation (Donald, 2010). Conclusion From the above, we can conclude that both theories favored government, but differed on the authority bestowed upon the leader. Hobbes’ theory of social contract mainly focused on unlimited power for the one in authority, as he believed it would end conflict. He believed that this step would prevent the conflict that results from people living freely. On the other hand, Locke insisted that government be given limited power within its contract. This was the backbone of the differences in their theories and hence led to all other differences as seen above. References Donald, J. A. (2010): An essay concerning the true original, extent, and en of civil government, by John Locke 1690: Retrieved July 16, 2010, from http://jim.com/2ndtreat.htm Donald, J. A. (2010): Locke versus Hobbes. Retrieved July 15, 2010, from http://jim.com/hobbes.htm Friend, C. (2004): Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy .Social Contract Theory. Retrieved July 15, 2010 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/ Hobbes, T. (2008): Leviathan, Part 1. NH, USA: Forgotten books. Kelly, M. (2010): Social Contract. Retrieved July 16, 2010from http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/g/social_contract.htm Lloyd, S.A. & Sreedhar, S. (2008): Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved July 15, 2010 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/ Uzgalis, W. (2007): John Locke: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved July 16, 2010 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ Read More