In the 17th century, politics was a popular subject. Political authority, and the obligation of citizens was highly debated and questioned. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two philosophers who’s views on the State of Nature made huge impacts on political theory. Hobbes’ work “Philosophicall Rudiments Concerning Government and Society” was published in 1951. Shortly after, John Locke’s “Two Treaties of Civil Government” was published, in the 1660’s during the time that monarchy had been restored in England. He was a revolutionary and believed that the King, Charles II, was a tyrant.
The years between 1660 and 1688 was a period of great unrest under a monarch in England. Though these two authors have a few similar basic principals and they both address the State of Nature, they have completely different views on what political life is meant to be. They both make comprehensive arguments. However, Locke makes a better case for government through consent, than Hobbes’ justification for absolute authority, through his definition of the State of Nature, his reasoning for this definition, and the consequences he draws from it for political authority and society.
When discussing the State of Nature, both authors are addressing a situation in which people live under no authority or government. However, their definitions differ significantly.
He states that humans at their core are free, independent, rational, and equal, governed by the law of nature, which is reason. He does not believe that the State of Nature is a State of War, but that there are instances of this only when one is threatened or attacked.
Though I believe that both authors’ views of the State of Nature are extremities- Hobbes’ being overly pessimistic and Locke’s being somewhat simplistic - I do tend to agree with Locke more. First of all, Hobbes bases his entire interpretation of the State of Nature on a thought experiment, while Locke’s definition of the State of Nature, as he addresses, applies to monarchy and absolute authority as well as a situation with a lack of government completely. The state that Hobbes explains seems to better describe a situation in which a people have been unexpectedly thrown into a state of anarchy, in which chaos takes over and fear becomes their only voice of reason. As Locke explains, if we were to consider a State of Nature in its natural form, that is where it is the norm, people can get along for the most part, and create compacts without entering into society. Locke states “...when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind” (2008: s.6, p 288). In a continuous State of Nature, people would learn the only way to have a chance would be to cooperate as much as possible.
The years between 1660 and 1688 was a period of great unrest under a monarch in England. Though these two authors have a few similar basic principals and they both address the State of Nature, they have completely different views on what political life is meant to be. They both make comprehensive arguments. However, Locke makes a better case for government through consent, than Hobbes’ justification for absolute authority, through his definition of the State of Nature, his reasoning for this definition, and the consequences he draws from it for political authority and society.
When discussing the State of Nature, both authors are addressing a situation in which people live under no authority or government. However, their definitions differ significantly.
 |
| Thomas Hobbes |
For Hobbes, the State of Nature is a State of War - without government, we are all potentially ready to take each other’s lives all in the name of protecting ourselves. There is no security or safety we can rely on. He states that our natural, inherent will to hurt each other, along with the right of all to all, creates jelousies and suspicions which results in a war of all men against all men. “For what is war but that same time in which the will of contesting by force is fully declared, either by words or deeds” (Wootton, 1986: s.3, p 453).
Locke, on the other hand, defines the State of Nature as “...a state of perfect
freedom” (Wootton, 2008: s.4, p 287).
 |
| John Locke |
Though I believe that both authors’ views of the State of Nature are extremities- Hobbes’ being overly pessimistic and Locke’s being somewhat simplistic - I do tend to agree with Locke more. First of all, Hobbes bases his entire interpretation of the State of Nature on a thought experiment, while Locke’s definition of the State of Nature, as he addresses, applies to monarchy and absolute authority as well as a situation with a lack of government completely. The state that Hobbes explains seems to better describe a situation in which a people have been unexpectedly thrown into a state of anarchy, in which chaos takes over and fear becomes their only voice of reason. As Locke explains, if we were to consider a State of Nature in its natural form, that is where it is the norm, people can get along for the most part, and create compacts without entering into society. Locke states “...when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind” (2008: s.6, p 288). In a continuous State of Nature, people would learn the only way to have a chance would be to cooperate as much as possible.
It is interesting to see some overlapping principles that Hobbes and Locke account for in their reasoning for the definition of the State of Nature.
First, I will examine Hobbes’ ideas. He disagrees with Aristotle, and says that we do not come together for the preservation of peace and government of mankind, but instead out of a desire for profit or honour. His thoughts are based largely on this pessimistic view of human nature. He states that people come and stay together out of mutual fear of others taking our things or our lives, because “nature has given to everyone a right to all” (1986: s.10, p 455). Therefore, since everyone has a right to everything, everyone has no right to anything, since anyone can claim what one claims to be his. He states “the cause of mutual fear consists partly in the natural ability of men, partly in their mutual will of hurting: whence it comes to pass that we can neither expect from others, nor promise ourselves, the least security” (1986: s.3, p 453).
His account of equality is based on the idea that all men are equal in their capacity to do harm to one another. He also accounts for individual rights. Since every man wants what is good for him and not that which is evil, it is a natural impulse to repel death which is the evilest. “Therefore, the first foundation of natural right is this, that every man, as much as in him lies, endeavor to protect his life and members” (1986: s.7, p 454). And, since a right to an end signifies a right to a means to that end, then by the right of nature, every man is the judge of means, and whether his actions are necessary to the preservation of his life. However, he justifies entering political society because the right of all men to do all things is unprofitable. Perpetual war is contradictory to the preservation of mankind.
Locke accounts for the State of Nature differently. He speaks of equality in different terms, due to rights, since God gave everyone the world equally, “...wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal” (2008: s. 4 p 287). He says one can kill another if they try to take what we have. Reparation and restraint, he says, “...are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment” (2008: s.8, p 288). Like Hobbes, Locke says that we have the right to judge when our own rights have been violated. However, he justifies entering into society because in a State of Nature, there is no independent third-party judge to solve conflicts, and to enforce laws and resolve disputes. Because without this, “...that self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends” (2008: s.13, p 289).
First, I will examine Hobbes’ ideas. He disagrees with Aristotle, and says that we do not come together for the preservation of peace and government of mankind, but instead out of a desire for profit or honour. His thoughts are based largely on this pessimistic view of human nature. He states that people come and stay together out of mutual fear of others taking our things or our lives, because “nature has given to everyone a right to all” (1986: s.10, p 455). Therefore, since everyone has a right to everything, everyone has no right to anything, since anyone can claim what one claims to be his. He states “the cause of mutual fear consists partly in the natural ability of men, partly in their mutual will of hurting: whence it comes to pass that we can neither expect from others, nor promise ourselves, the least security” (1986: s.3, p 453).
 |
| http://akrasia.info/2011/02/hobbes-on-the-danges-of-equality/ |
His account of equality is based on the idea that all men are equal in their capacity to do harm to one another. He also accounts for individual rights. Since every man wants what is good for him and not that which is evil, it is a natural impulse to repel death which is the evilest. “Therefore, the first foundation of natural right is this, that every man, as much as in him lies, endeavor to protect his life and members” (1986: s.7, p 454). And, since a right to an end signifies a right to a means to that end, then by the right of nature, every man is the judge of means, and whether his actions are necessary to the preservation of his life. However, he justifies entering political society because the right of all men to do all things is unprofitable. Perpetual war is contradictory to the preservation of mankind.
Locke accounts for the State of Nature differently. He speaks of equality in different terms, due to rights, since God gave everyone the world equally, “...wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal” (2008: s. 4 p 287). He says one can kill another if they try to take what we have. Reparation and restraint, he says, “...are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment” (2008: s.8, p 288). Like Hobbes, Locke says that we have the right to judge when our own rights have been violated. However, he justifies entering into society because in a State of Nature, there is no independent third-party judge to solve conflicts, and to enforce laws and resolve disputes. Because without this, “...that self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends” (2008: s.13, p 289).
Once again, I believe that Locke makes a more convincing argument in total. First of all, Hobbes’ view on equality is based on physical capabilities, however he talks about individual “rights” of defending ones life. This account of “right” resembles Locke’s view of equality. Next, I wish to defend one of Locke’s arguments. Though his theory on equality has been criticized I believe it’s a lot better than Hobbes’. Hobbes states men are equal because of their capability to do harm but due to natural differences in body types, strengths, gender, and even mental disabilities, we know this to be false. When Locke says that humans are free, independent, rational, and equal, he is right because a human being has true potential to be all those things once conditioned and raised by his parents. The argument that a human is none of those things when born can be equally applied to Hobbes’ theory on one’s capabilities to do harm. As a grown human being, at which point one can fully take part in society, (since no child gets a say anyways,) one is naturally, at his core, free, independent, rational, and equal.
Both Hobbes and Locke believe the State of Nature is not the best state to be in. They both justify leaving it to enter into political society. However, once again their views differ significantly on what this political society - authority and citizen obligation - should entail.
Hobbes says since the State of Nature makes people’s lives short and nasty, and with an inability to maintain material possessions, we must enter compacts with one another not to harm each other and for defense against other groups. Also, without enforcement, these compacts are arbitrary. Therefore, a third party is needed with power to enforce but also to judge and solve cases with differences of opinion.
This should be an absolute authority which people owe complete obedience to. He favours a monarch, because sovereignty should be indivisible, to avoid splitting of authority, but is open to the idea of a republic government. The “sword of justice” belongs to he who is in supreme power - he has the ability to judge and punish for wrongdoings. This person also holds the “sword of war” and monopoly on power, because only he who can punish can decide when to go to war and force/require his people to defend the country. The legislative power and power to choose magistrates and council also rests with him, as does the power to “...both judge what opinions and doctrines are enemies unto peace, and also that he forbid them to be taught” (1986: s.11, p 468). Also, “...whatsoever shall be done by him who commands must not be punished” (1986: s.12, p 468), for he’s the punisher. Hobbes believes it is necessary for the authority through overwhelming power and fear, to be able to do what it wants. The only right the citizens have is to refuse killing themselves, since they enter compacts to protect their lives. They trade obedience for protection, so once the authority no longer protects them, they don’t have to obey. On property, Hobbes says it is not a natural right, but a civil one. Because in the State of Nature, all things belong to all men, “...it follows that property received its beginning when cities received theres...” (1986: s.15, p 470). And therefore, since the right to property comes from having a government, it has the power to take that which it gave you as well.
In contrast, Locke explains that since money was invented in the State of Nature, it comes before society. He defends the natural right to property, and says that since money came before society, the reason for having a government is to protect people’s property. Property, he includes to be life, like Hobbes, but unlike Hobbes - liberty and estate as well. Therefore, citizens have a say on how they want their property protected.
Locke’s philosophy is based on the idea that all government should be based on the consent of its people. There is expressed and tacit consent - the former being expressed membership to participate in society, which one can’t opt out from, and the latter being implicit consent which is given by enjoying property in a country, at which point one must obey its laws even if he’s not a citizen. A person gives up his right to be his own judge and punisher over to the government. The first of a government’s three functions is legislative: to make laws. These must be for the public good, and be made public. For example, taxation can only happen with the consent of the people. The second function is executive: to enforce the law, punish infractions, to make judgements, and to use force. The third is federative, and handles relations with other countries. The executive steps in where the law is silent. This is called prerogative, and it can oppose laws as well. This can only be done for the public good, not private interest, or else it’s called tyranny. A government must practice political power: power executed over people who have right to their property and want to protect it - this is just. Once the government starts acting tyrannically, treats its people like a slave and/or tries to take their property without consent, they are no longer obliged to obey, since the connection between the government and society is broken. It’s a change to a state of war, with the ruler acting as a rebel, using force against his people.
Hobbes says since the State of Nature makes people’s lives short and nasty, and with an inability to maintain material possessions, we must enter compacts with one another not to harm each other and for defense against other groups. Also, without enforcement, these compacts are arbitrary. Therefore, a third party is needed with power to enforce but also to judge and solve cases with differences of opinion.
 |
| http://library.thinkquest.org/07aug/00540/images/monarchism2.jpg |
This should be an absolute authority which people owe complete obedience to. He favours a monarch, because sovereignty should be indivisible, to avoid splitting of authority, but is open to the idea of a republic government. The “sword of justice” belongs to he who is in supreme power - he has the ability to judge and punish for wrongdoings. This person also holds the “sword of war” and monopoly on power, because only he who can punish can decide when to go to war and force/require his people to defend the country. The legislative power and power to choose magistrates and council also rests with him, as does the power to “...both judge what opinions and doctrines are enemies unto peace, and also that he forbid them to be taught” (1986: s.11, p 468). Also, “...whatsoever shall be done by him who commands must not be punished” (1986: s.12, p 468), for he’s the punisher. Hobbes believes it is necessary for the authority through overwhelming power and fear, to be able to do what it wants. The only right the citizens have is to refuse killing themselves, since they enter compacts to protect their lives. They trade obedience for protection, so once the authority no longer protects them, they don’t have to obey. On property, Hobbes says it is not a natural right, but a civil one. Because in the State of Nature, all things belong to all men, “...it follows that property received its beginning when cities received theres...” (1986: s.15, p 470). And therefore, since the right to property comes from having a government, it has the power to take that which it gave you as well.
In contrast, Locke explains that since money was invented in the State of Nature, it comes before society. He defends the natural right to property, and says that since money came before society, the reason for having a government is to protect people’s property. Property, he includes to be life, like Hobbes, but unlike Hobbes - liberty and estate as well. Therefore, citizens have a say on how they want their property protected.
 |
| http://greece.mrdonn.org/athensdemocracy.html |
Locke’s philosophy is based on the idea that all government should be based on the consent of its people. There is expressed and tacit consent - the former being expressed membership to participate in society, which one can’t opt out from, and the latter being implicit consent which is given by enjoying property in a country, at which point one must obey its laws even if he’s not a citizen. A person gives up his right to be his own judge and punisher over to the government. The first of a government’s three functions is legislative: to make laws. These must be for the public good, and be made public. For example, taxation can only happen with the consent of the people. The second function is executive: to enforce the law, punish infractions, to make judgements, and to use force. The third is federative, and handles relations with other countries. The executive steps in where the law is silent. This is called prerogative, and it can oppose laws as well. This can only be done for the public good, not private interest, or else it’s called tyranny. A government must practice political power: power executed over people who have right to their property and want to protect it - this is just. Once the government starts acting tyrannically, treats its people like a slave and/or tries to take their property without consent, they are no longer obliged to obey, since the connection between the government and society is broken. It’s a change to a state of war, with the ruler acting as a rebel, using force against his people.
I side completely with Locke, for his own defense of his argument. Locke says that in the case of an absolute monarch like that which Hobbes defends, citizens are living in a degraded version of the State of Nature. Hobbes says that under an absolute monarch, citizens must live in fear. What is the point of escaping a life of living in fear only to live in fear of something else? The monarch that Hobbes explains resembles exactly that which he says poses a problem in the State of Nature - someone with the ability to take ones life and property whenever, except that its a degraded version because a person no longer even has the ability to be his own judge or punisher. “Hence it is evident, that absolute monarchy... is indeed inconsistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil government at all” (2008: s.90, p 310).
Parisa Pouramn
RESOURCES:
- Wootton, David. Divine Right and Democracy. Indianapolis : Penguin Books, 1986.
- Wootton, David. Modern Political Thought. Indianapolis : Cambridge Press, 2008.
- http://www.iep.utm.edu/
- http://www.studentpulse.com (http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/75/john-locke-on-equality-toleration-and-the-atheist-exception)
- First Youtube video provided by RibsGD
- Second and third Youtube video provided by YaleCourses
- http://www.wikipedia.com
