Hobbes vs Locke

Hobbes vs. Locke: Political Theories Both Hobbes and Locke shared similarities within their political theories; however their theories also had some major differences. Both men were responding to the crisis of the 17th century and they were highly influenced by the scientific revolution. Hobbes and Locke rejected all previous theories regarding human nature. They used the same methodology, and the men accepted an atomistic view of society. They believed that individuals were rational and were motivated by self-interest. Hobbes and Locke traced their theories from a state of nature to the social contract. They agreed that the legitimacy of the government rested on the consent of the governed. Together, both men rejected legitimate political authorities such as Divine Right of Kings, brute force, historical tradition, and feudal contracts. Both political philosophers offered interesting arguments pertaining to government, human nature, and the state of nature. Thomas Hobbes, a student of Descartes, was born in 1588 and lived through some terrible moments of human history, until he died in 1679. The Civil War, public executions, and The Spanish Armada negatively impacted Hobbes and his view of human nature. During his life it was dangerous to question the government, and surely man had no right to rebel. This negative opinion is further emphasized in Hobbes political theories, in which he concluded humans were selfish and ruthless. Hobbes believed that he and fear were born together. Oppositely, John Lock was born in 1632 and lived through peaceful moments in human history, until he died in 1704. He witnessed The Glorious Revolution and The Declaration of Rights, both in 1689. Society was tolerant and relatively free during this time. This peaceful transmission of power was reflected in his political theories. The men shared a difference in opinion regarding the purpose of government that was needed to rule a civil society. Thomas Hobbes believed that the government was needed to preserve human life, whereas John Locke believed government was needed to preserve property. Hobbes argued that government was artificial and was manmade through the social contract. The government’s job was to protect us, as citizens, but was not to make us a better person, thus the emphasis was put on the individual. The government was a pooling of power. The people needed to give up their entire power to the sovereign, but this power should not be used, other than to enforce the laws. The power should be kept in reserve, in case of a rebellion. The sovereign should make example of lawbreakers through punishment, but should make as few laws as possible, allowing the people to pursue their own self-interest. The people had no right to rebel against the sovereign. The sovereign can be any type of government, although Hobbes preferred monarchy, it was not essential. It was essential, however, that the sovereign be absolute. The sole intention of the government should be to preserve life. In the case that the sovereign does not fulfil its duties and does not protect the people, another sovereign may be elected. On the contrary, Locke believed the purpose of the government was to preserve property. Rather than release their entire rights and power to the sovereign, they must only release a limited amount, thus still retaining their right to rebel and overthrow a corrupt government. The people had the right to rebel if the sovereign disobeyed the social contract, in which the people may revolt and regain power. Through the limited surrender of rights they also retained their natural right to life, liberty, and property, as per the social contract. Furthermore, Locke believed the power given to the sovereign should be divided amongst three branches of government: legislative—to make and pass laws, executive—to enforce the laws, and federative—which deals with other nations. This division of power further weakened the sovereign, and was ideal for Locke due to his fear of tyranny. Both Hobbes and Locke agreed that humans were rational beings; however, the events that they lived through, whether negative or positive, shaped their ideas of human nature. On the one hand, Hobbes believed that humans were selfish, ruthless, untrustworthy, and motivated by their passions and reason. He explained that society is composed of social atoms, motivated by the pursuit of pleasure, avoidance of fear and pain, fear of death, and the desire to gain power over others. On the other hand, Locke believed that humans were malleable, in which they were born with a tabula rasa. They are open to rational co-operation, and are conditioned to behave a certain way. Their biggest influences are from childhood, in that the first marks on the tabula rasa have the deepest impact. Humans are generally peaceful beings, until a problem arises. The people must respect the fundamental rights of others—life, liberty, and property—and in return they will respect their rights as well. Based on their different views of human nature, their views of the state of nature differ as well. Hobbes believed if we were to live in a state of nature, exempt of laws and government, it would be a terrible time, in which every man was to fend for himself. Due to human’s selfish nature, a world without politics would lead to continuous conflict and a war against all. During this time of war, man would live in “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” (160), thus satisfying their selfish desires. However, by metaphorically signing the social contract, humans are protected against their ruthless neighbours and political absolutism. The social contract allows them an escape from chaos and a return to nature. Yet, Locke believed that, as peaceful beings, we would live a peaceful life in the state of nature. With no government to preserve their property, society should not gain a surplus in property; the people should not have more than they need. Humans can work to gain private property, but it can only be achieved through labour, yet we should not hoard property. When property is hoarded, it becomes problematic, and when problems arise there is a need for government, in order to avoid conflict. The desire of property was also applied to the desire of money. Humans could hoard more food than was necessary, or else it would spoil, however when the item of desire does not spoil it caused complications. Thus requiring the need of government, and “whosoever uses force without right […] who does it without law, puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so used it; and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and everyone has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.” (173). Locke believed the social contract aided in avoiding tyranny on the sovereign. No matter their difference in political theories, both Hobbes and Locke established the liberal tradition. The tradition taught that no individual had natural authority over another—they were all equal and social atoms. The legitimacy of the government rested on the consent of the governed, as well the government was not natural; it was artificial and created by reason. Humans were motivated by self-interest, and the government helped us to pursue this interest, but also left us as free as possible in order to pursue this interest. Finally, the government was not meant to make us moral or better people. Although both Hobbes and Locke offered quite different theories, they maintained some important similarities. If this situation were to arise today’s society, I think we would observe a combination of these two theories. People may start the voyage as generally peaceful, compassionate, and wanting to work together for the benefit of the group. However, if necessities run scarce, it may evolve into a war against all, in order to try and gain a surplus. Our selfish desires will show through, and each man will be left fend for themselves, and to ultimately stay alive. There would be a natural division of people: the natural leaders, and the natural followers. The natural selfishness of man currently becomes clear during major sales at set times of the year. For example, Black Friday sales across the world, we hear of people dying by being trampled, because of the others wanting to get a laptop or television, since on sale “necessities” would be scarce. Hobbes and Locke explored diverse points of view regarding their political theories of government, human nature, and the state of nature, and were probably not too far from the truth.

Works Cited
“The Arts 1000 Reader.” Custom Edition for the Faculty of Arts (2010). Canada.
Thomas Hobbes (157-163). Print.

“The Arts 1000 Reader.” Custom Edition for the Faculty of Arts (2010). Canada. John Locke (164-173). Print.

Cited: “The Arts 1000 Reader.” Custom Edition for the Faculty of Arts (2010). Canada. Thomas Hobbes (157-163). Print. “The Arts 1000 Reader.” Custom Edition for the Faculty of Arts (2010). Canada. John Locke (164-173). Print.