Political Theories - Term Paper Example

Comparing and Contrasting Hobbes and Locke’s Perspectives Introduction The work of Hobbes and Locke focused in the period before the formation of societies referred to as the state of nature when mankind looked at themselves as the individual rather than collectively and it is at this moment that man left the state of nature to form societies that are civil in nature (Hills, 1982). The change from the state of nature to the formation of civil societies is what the two philosophers refers to as the making of a contract and the difference between these philosophers is what happened to the individual rights after the formation of the contract. Hobbes in his contract theory states that once the rights of the individual are surrendered to the sovereign, the contract is irrevocable and the only justifiable way to retrieve the contract is to form a new contract while Locke considers the social contract as revocable with the individual retaining the right to terminate the contract at any given time. The intent of this paper is to evaluate the perspectives that Hobbes and Locke adopted and compare and contrast them as per their views on the state of nature, individual freedom, sovereign power and property. This paper will find that Locke had several similarities with Locke especially on the common beliefs of human beings. In the discussion of the paper it is quite evident that Hobbes in his work ‘Leviathan’ is written from a religious perspective. State of Nature The state of nature is the conditions in which human beings lived before the concept of formation of societies came to be and its understanding helps us to analyse the society in such a way as to provide a direction for suggesting what are the ends of the state which may help in remedying the problems in the state of nature. Therefore Hobbes does not contemplate the state of nature as having been present largely all over the world which is contrary to the thoughts of Locke which posit that this state existed prior and remains so unless men form a society (Locke, 1690). However, both Locke and Hobbes do agree that there was some form of pre-contractual groups in the state of nature before human beings accepted to form contracts. According to Hobbes, before the state of nature or what is referred to as the primary state of nature, there is no authority to bind the words of the men but in the secondary state of nature, God is the common power and enforces the covenants and He reveals the laws of nature through reason (Hobbes, 1668). The primary state of nature is a state of war and men can only outmanoeuvre their opponents through being cunning or coming together with others who are also endangered to overcome a threat that is common to them (Hobbes, 1668). This is so because men are equal in ability and are equally similar in attaining the ends of their desires and the fact that two people cannot at the same time have the same thing that each desires, they endeavour to destroy or subdue each other. The mistrust that men have for one another is therefore the foundation of Hobbes state of nature and since man does not know whom to trust, he must fear all men in general and this fear is the basis for the state of war. When this occurs, the men are by themselves forced to be peaceful as they fear dying and have the desire for what is deemed important for good living as well as the hope of attaining the ends of these desires through resolve. Men can then attain peace through the laws of nature and these are available to men through reason and these laws have obligations and an authority’s command (Hobbes, 1668). From here, Hobbes derives other laws and the fundamental law of nature is the general rule of reason while the second is the restatement of the right of nature and that men can defend themselves through all means possible and the third law of nature states that men perform covenants they have made. Locke argues that God is the principal figure and His will to humankind is presented through divine inspiration and the Law of Nature, and therefore human beings can only realize God through design and the purpose of nature once they understand that there is a creator who has some purpose for them just (Locke, 1690). To him, since men can discover God through his natural abilities, he can also discover the law of nature as well through reason. This law of nature according to Locke is not acquired through prior or traditional knowledge but acquired through reason and sense-experience known as the light of nature or that that is attained without the help of a fellow human being. Locke also posits that apart from preserving themselves, men are required to help preserve all of mankind and that all men are equal as they are created by God. The implication of this is that all human beings have jurisdiction over themselves through an equal right to life, liberty and property meaning that in state of perfect nature, men have the freedom to carry out their activities as they like as long as they are within the bounds of the law of nature. To him, property is when men unite in a commonwealth and put themselves under a government in order to preserve their property for the common good of all human kind. Individual Freedom Hobbes argues that it is the commonwealth that secures the liberty of citizens and genuine human freedom is the ability to carry out one’s will devoid of any form of interference from any quarter or human being (Hobbes, 1668). It does not however mean that the law does not exist as the agreement by humans to a common authority helps them secure liberty and respect to fellow human beings. Therefore, Hobbes argues that submitting to the sovereign is totally decisive except when it purports to control the rights of individuals in terms of life which cannot be transferred. What Hobbes means is that each individual must concede their rights to the government in return for their life within the society. However, in discussing life and liberty Locke states that all men are in a state of impeccable sovereignty to mandate their actions and dispose of their properties as well as persons as they deem suitable within the bounds of the nature law, and they can carry out this without asking permission or relying on the will of another human (Locke, 1690). Therefore men can live their lives free from the demands of any other person as they are perfectly equal as all are creatures of the same species and born to enjoy similar advantages of nature. The equality meant by Locke is that men have the right of not being subjected to the will of fellow human beings in terms of freedom and not equality of wealth and abilities. Sovereign Power Hobbes in the Leviathan states that men are inclined to desire power after power and are in constant struggle until death ends the struggle and this theory allows the sovereign power to reside in only one person (Hobbes, 1668). This could be in a democracy where the person is represented by an assembly or in aristocracy when the representative is part of the people only and when a people are dissatisfied with the government; there could either be tyranny, oligarchy or anarchy. Locke in the Second Treatise agrees with the three types of government as stated by Hobbes but refers to the aristocracy as oligarchy meaning that their definitions are almost similar (Locke, 1690). The difference between Locke’s and Hobbe’s theory is that Hobbes argues that the sovereign power must only be given to one of these three types of governments and there can be no mixing of power while Locke allows the mixing of power amongst the three types of government. Locke prefers the legislative arm of the government to make the laws and the executive to execute or enforce them for the benefit of all humankind within the social contract. Hobbes in the Leviathan compares the sovereign to a mortal god and the soul of the society and argues that the power of the government should reside in one person as through that it will be stronger and durable. He therefore states that when the power is divided, the different factions holding the power will be in competition and constant argument leading the government to fall (Hobbes, 1668). Locke on the other hand aims at protecting the citizen from the whims of the government and suggests that power should be divided amongst people and that power should be divided in order to keep any person in power from getting too strong which may lead to dictatorial tendencies. Hobbes posits that the sovereign is the soul of the society and when a government collapses, the soul no longer exists and each member of the society must seek a new sovereign in order to protect them. This is similar to the argument by Locke who argues that the legislative arm of the government is the soul that gives human beings form, life and unity to the commonwealth meaning that the subjects submit to the laws made by the legislature for harmony in the society. However, the difference between the two philosophers is whether or not power can be taken back by the people who put in position the sovereign in a manner that can be said to be legitimate. Hobbes argues that once power is transferred to the sovereign, the process cannot be reversed and once people put in place a government, all internal causes of the dissolution of the government will be unjustified and the people cannot purport to withdraw their support for the sovereign unless he fails to fulfil his part of the contract. This is in contrast to what Locke states in that he argues that the contract can be broken internally when there is justification for doing so especially when the trust to the legislative arm is lost. Locke states that people will revolt against the government if they are mistreated and can only tolerate poor governing without revolt when the mistakes of the government are not so glaring or continue. His solution to forestalling this revolt is through constitutions that are written down and it is only the body of people who will be the judge in determining when the government violates the trust put on it by the people. Property According to Hobbes, the concept of property is the creation of the state and the subjects have no proprietary rights in the state of nature meaning that the property only exists after the creation of the sovereign who will enforce the contracts made by the subjects (Hobbes, 1668). He state that every private man has absolute propriety in his goods excluding the right of others and he only has it from the supreme power, without the defence whereof every other individual will be entitled to the same. Locke argues that the major and important reason of men uniting into a commonwealth and putting themselves under a form of government is to preserve the property that they hold. This can be expressed in both a broader and narrow sense whereby this means the natural rights of men which include life, liberty and estates and estates respectively (Locke, 1690). The basis of Locke’s argument on property is that a person has a natural right to his life and person which translates to the right to property also. Macpherson (1962) argues that Locke has two stages in the state of nature which include one prior to the use of money and the agreement to money and possession which is unequal which is based on the fact that Locke believed that men are able to make contracts on the basis of contract before forming governments. From the above argument, we can make a conclusion that Locke advocated for individuals to have the liberty to possess property while Hobbes believes that the concept of individual property rights can only lead to the destruction of the commonwealth and a return to the natural state of war. Conclusion The most obvious connection between the theory by Hobbes and Locke is that they both have reservations about the dangers that the state of nature puts on men who are equal in this state. While Hobbes states that nature has made men equal in terms of mind and body, Locke states that the state of nature is a state of perfect equality with no jurisdiction or superiority over other men. Despite this similarity, there is the difference when Hobbes states that nature is perpetually in a state of war and men give their power to a sovereign in order to seek peace and avoid death while Locke states that war is merely a subset of the state of nature and men only live together due to reason. In conclusion, both Hobbe’s and Locke’s theories on the social agreement show how the society and governments are run and how the individuals that make up the society exercise their will and power. The bottom-line though is that Hobbes advocates for absolute power in the running of the society while Locke supports restricted authority and freedom for the society in terms of the will and property. While both theories have their merits, the theory by Locke seems to be the more acceptable one as it establishes a society that grants all individuals within it the liberty and freedom to conduct their affairs. This explains why it has found a wider appeal in large sections of the society and authorities in the making of the social contract between the sovereign and the subjects. References Hills, C. (1982). The century of revolution, 1603-1714. New York: Norton. Hobbes, T. (1668). Leviathan. Indianapolis: Hacket Pub. Co. Locke, J. (1690). Second treatise of government. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 2004. Macpherson, C. B. (1962). The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Oxford. Clarendon Press. Read More