Arguments by Hobbes and Locke - Essay Example

Running heading: Arguments by Hobbes and Locke Arguments by Hobbes and Locke Name Course Tutor 21st October, 2010 Social Contract Theory Social contract theory being an old theory that started long time ago as to when philosophy began is used to explain the various perspectives through which people view their duties both morally and politically pegging this on the agreements on which the society is formed. This theory tries to explain the various considerations that some up to the formation of political governments that are the most dominating in the world today. The first expositor of Social Contract was Thomas Hobbes. Other than Hobbes, Locke J. also participated in the propagation of this theory. This paper gives the account of the arguments of Hobbes and Locke on the theory in trying to explain the political organization of our society today. While Hobbes and Locke used some similar arguments over this issue the difference cone in the methodology of dealing with the social contract1. The theories are very important in defining the functions of governments and their contribution to human development and existence. The essence of working with the government systems is to ensure that the development of these subjects is the interests are to be analyzed either directly or indirectly. To explain these issues Locke and Hobbes have been both directly and indirectly influenced by the era of their time that made them to do these researches2. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke arguments Thomas Hobbes lived during the early stages of the revolution of governance in England. This was the time of the civil war that was waged mainly due to discomfort and disagreements over system of governance in England the supporters of the monarch were in for confrontation with the pro-parliamentary system proponents who were led by Oliver Cromwell. Hobbes argument is based on consensus between the two conflicting groups which resulted `to the sharing of power between the monarch and the parliamentary system. Such confrontations resulted to dialogue hence leading to exchanges made by the groups. The result of the dialogue resulted in the hybrid system hence the formation of government made up of the Monarchy and the parliament3. On the other hand John Locke argues from a point of view of the state of natural govern ship. According to him the state of nature turned out to be brutal to man naturally which put pressure on him to device another mechanism of governance. The men who are rational resorted to absolute authority to escape the intolerable nature. The definiteness of the rule of law made them to push for the political government which will control the extent to which goodness and badness is determined. This is f great importance bearing in mind that the main functions of the government is to cater for its citizens4. Hobbes in his arguments sees political authority to be based on the self-interest of those who seek political power and at the same time taking a religious angle. He views the obligation that is political to be emanating from religious basis added to that of the self interest of the community. As much as to the proponents of the parliamentary system having self interest Hobbes argues that the members of that community are in one way or the other understood to be equal as. The community has to retain the monarchy in order to survive. Due to the nature of his argument Hobbes takes the stand of both a radical and conservatism. That no system of governance could best be used but the incorporation of the political government and the monarch which is power given by God to the royal family. The monarch is considered to be sovereign and the ruling power in the land hence there should be absolute respect and loyalty5. John Locke argues that the state of nature that was the control engine of mankind was not just based on absolute freedom that allows one to o whatever they wanted to but that it was guided by moral expectations which he argues to be God given. The moral expectations are the ones that the persons in the society in taking an action or avoiding such action. As such he has some similarity with Hobbes over the religious contribution to the governance of the society. Locke believes that the law of nature was God given and that it roots for equality in the society. As such the law of nature is considered to be peaceful since morality pushes for freedom to do whatever one ought to but confined within the precincts of not harming others in the society. The political argument of Hobbes can be best understood if it’s looked at from two perspectives. This can be based on psychological aspects, social contract and the theory of motivation as the wider perspective. In his works, The Leviathan, he propels his view of politics and morality as a product of the Human nature theory6. Hobbes sought to explain how scientific discoveries and revolution goes in line with the Human nature theory. The psychological approach he uses is based on the position that everything that exists in the universe is a product of the motion of matter. He uses this argument to assert his belief that there are micro behaviors even within the behaviors of humans. This micro – behaviors constitute the push up to the direction of our behaviors that eventually determine the behavior of individuals that can actually be observed. He therefore argues that our actions cab best be explained from the widely accepted natural laws the same way with the movement of the heavenly bodies. The mechanical aspect taken by Hobbes would explain for example human memory lapse to be as a result of inertia. His view rates humans to be a sort of complicated machines that happen to be organic. John Locke’s argument on the state of nature takes a different angle from that of Hobbes when he argues that the demonstrations against the monarch were simply guided by the revolutions on democracy that were taking place at the time especially in the United States. In his arguments he argues that since that laws of nature are God controlled then all humans must be treated with respect and equality since the are all equal in the eyes of God7. From the mechanical view of Hobbes the goodness or badness of something is relative to the appetites and preferences of individuals. The moral terms therefore of an individual may not be describing the state of affairs but the objective point of view of the individuals. Human actions are also a product of subjectivism. Those humans are attracted to take and to do that which they consider to be satisfying their self interests. Humans only consider something to be good if what they are interested in is part and parcel of it. This explains all aspects that relates to the desire for power and status. All our actions are guided by desires to make our situations better. Much of what e do is directed by the behind thinking of what e will benefit from the actions and steps we take. Hobbes argues that other than the guide of self interest Humans are also guided by the ability to reason. This is a little diversion from self interest since reasoning requires an objective take on the issues’ that affect humans. Rationality of men forces them to way their options on based on the implications of various actions besides the self interests that characterize their desires. For example one has to weigh between owning 1000Ha of land and not tilling it yet others don’t have access to even one acre. Guided by self interest the person has to keep the land while further reasoning will dictate that he relinquishes the part which he doesn’t use for any economic or subsistence benefit8. From the human nature perspective, Hobbes gives an argument that is provocative yet compelling of the reasons why humans have that obligation to submit to some form of political authority. Hobbes asserts this by giving an imaginary situation of the pre-political situation that was characterized by, State of Nature. The state of nature has and operates from indirect rules that are the morals of the society. The law of nature made it difficult for those who are weak in the society to exist. The newly formed government systems had the stipulation safeguarding those who have power including the minority. John Locke argues that the formation of civil government is mainly based on the inadequacies that are the Law of Nature. In an example where there is conflict between two parties the law of nature will provide for an extension of the conflict until the parties are able to deal with it in person. As such the law of nature would only operate well if there was the goodwill. Without the goodwill to operate by the moral expectations the society guided by the law of nature will be in a bad position. This forced the society to adopt the civil government to do away with such deficiencies9. In his explanation on the state of nature, John Locke does not underplay the role that property plays in defining such society. For one to acquire property they have to join their labor with the natural resources available. The extent to which one can acquire property in such a society is only to the extent of their capability to use the natural resources. The land ownership for example is allowed only to the extent that the land is being used for production and that none of it lays fallow. From this angle, Locke argues that the Native Americans had no right at all to claim ownership of the vast lands which they couldn’t fully be put to good use. While Hobbes looks at the state of nature being a condition of people, Locke sees it from a different perspective. To Locke, the state of nature constitutes the general agreements between the members of the basic family which has got the mother, father son and children. He calls this “conjugal” society. Hobbes believes that before the formation of a social contract, men only operated on the basis of unconventionality. This is to mean that at that time nothing was considered wrong or unfair rather men’s actions were based on the how their agreement of how they will live. This was changed after the incorporation of the Social contract government that provided clear guidelines and boundaries to which they are to use in their daily lives. This provided a basis for judgment of men’s actions. Incase of an extended conflict violence the victims of tyranny would suffer a great deal10. The natural view and the morality view are what explain the differences that are the arguments of Locke’s and Hobbes perspectives. Locke believes in the guidance of the state of nature by moral limitations. He however is acknowledges that the people could still live in fear even in the state governments. Hobbes believes in near absolute authority and sees the state of nature as very unstable. The reason for the support of the existence of a sovereign as Hobbes explains is majorly pegged on the fact that men’s passions in most cases overpower their reasoning hence the need for absolute authority to check their actions. For example vices such as corruption can only be well controlled by a political government with well laid out laws. This ensures that all the required sections of the government are in place and are working accordingly. While one as a public officer for example is tempted to use public funds for his own benefits as we are having our own self interest he is compelled by the law to use it for the designated function. The same law gives the parameters within which punishment can be executed. Conclusion The social contract, as brought about by the two Sociologists, John Locke and Hobbes have a lot in common to share. The aspect of political institutions existing is to protect the general society. However the formation of political governments is on the basis of self interests according to Hobbes. The political leaders have their own individual interests while at the same time the proponents of the political government have their own individual interests that are covered by the law as a whole. This can be a big issue in the running and maintaining the affairs of the government. The political government should have the political will so as to facilitate adequate measures which affects it as a whole. The individual interests’ of the society in these cases is handled from a group point of view. The lack of sovereignty after the states formation has been the limitation of the contract leading to conflicts between states according to Locke. The two sociologists agree that the governance by the new states is better than in the state of nature. The need for standardization and having a neutral judge played also a key role to the formation of centralized governments. References Baumgold, D., 2010. Contract Theory in Historical Context: Essays on Grotius, Hobbes, and Locke. New York: BRILL Ercke, S., 2009. Classical Social Contract Theory. New York: GRIN Verlag Engle, E., 2010. Law as Positive Reasoning & Natural Rationality. New York: Eric Engle Finlayson, A. & Valentine, J., 2002. Politics and post-structuralism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Finlayson, A., 2009. Democracy and Pluralism: The Political Thought of William E. Connolly. New Jersey: Taylor & Francis Koch, A. M., 2007. Poststructuralism and the politics of method. New York: Lexington Books Peters, M. A., 2001. Poststructuralism, Marxism, and neoliberalism: between theory and politics. New Jersey: Rowman & Littlefield Philip, Q. & Ben, D., 2008. Cognitive psychology. New York: Pearson/Prentice Hall Richardson, J., 2009. The classic social contractarians: critical perspectives from contemporary feminist philosophy and law. New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Rousseau, J., 2008. The Social Contract. New Jersey: Cosimo, Inc. Read More