Hobbes and Locke Essay
Both Hobbes and Locke wrote their political theories in the 17th century, and there are similarities between their works. They both believe that men enter a contract in order to improve their lives; however there are also important differences between their theories. Hobbes believed that without a sovereign there can only be chaos, which leads him to conclude that men should give up their rights to an absolute sovereign. Lock, on the other hand, wrote that there was some arrangement of order before a sovereign was established. He believed that sovereign was primarily put in place for protecting property. This essay shall outline Hobbes and Lockes theories and clarify their similarities and differences.
To understand Hobbes's theory of contract we must first understand his concept of the individual. Hobbes said that "man is nothing more than matter", and he compared society to the universe. He thought that the actions and impacts of men moved like the planets in the universe. This suggests that people do not have control over their own actions, which could explain why Hobbes believed that good and evil were nothing more than terms which humans frequently used to describe things they liked and disliked.
Hobbes believed that everyone is equal in mind more than body (at the time of his writing people had poor nutrition and little or no education, it would have been difficult to tell whether or not people are born equal). He thought that the minds of individuals are more or less the same and that they are interested in similar things. Hobbes also believed that people only do things in an act of selfishness, this means even when it appears that a person is doing something for the good of somebody else, they are actually gaining something from it for their own interests.
People want to be happy. For most people it seems that material goods could make them content. This leads to competition as people tend to want the same things; it can then cause disruption and violence as people want what others have.
"From this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end, (which is principally their owne conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another." (Hobbes, Leviathan, 184)
Hobbes thought that man would attack others to gain a reputation of power, so he could use that power later on in life to get what he wanted. People would live in fear as there ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
"From this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end, (which is principally their owne conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy, or subdue one another." (Hobbes, Leviathan, 184)
Hobbes thought that man would attack others to gain a reputation of power, so he could use that power later on in life to get what he wanted. People would live in fear as there is nothing to protect them from the terror of each other. This is called the state of nature, Hobbes believed that in a state of nature; because there would be no sovereign to keep people in line, everyone would do as they wished and there would be no order in society.
"To this warre of every man against every man...nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, Justice and Injustice, have no place" (Hobbes, Leviathan, 188)
Men could not own property before there is a sovereign in place as property would not exist until the sovereign tells man what their property is. Hobbes believed that people require some kind of system to install law and order in society, to protect property and the individuals.
Hobbes said that the sovereign was not established by nature, and it is not a gift from god (contrary to what some people believed in the 17th century). It is the people who established the sovereign. The sovereign should improve the lives of the people and jobs should seem more worthwhile as they will be rewarded. People agree to submit themselves to a sovereign as they feel that a sovereign can maintain law and order better than themselves.
It is the sovereign that decides how to rule the people but the people are not in contract with the sovereign, they are in a contract with each other; it is as though every man said to every other man "I will give my rights over to the sovereign if you do". In one of Hobbes's concepts, the concept of the law of nature, He states that people are obliged to hand over their rights to the sovereign as they must do whatever they can to keep themselves alive.
This however would prove extremely difficult in practice, because if there is no sovereign established then there is no system to force the people to agree to a sovereign. Also, they would not want to hand over their rights when they could not trust one another. In Hobbes's concept of the state of nature, he said that there would be constant fighting between the people. Hobbes believed that even good people would act in an unpleasant way. He thought that life with no sovereign power would be so terrible you would want to die because you would be in constant fear of one another and you would have no security over your possessions. Hobbes justifies this by looking at life during the English civil war. However this is just a tiny part of history and it is not reasonable to assume that life with no sovereign power would always be like that.
Hobbes said that when the people have decided to give their rights over to a sovereign, they must accept the sovereign and conform to the sovereign in every respect. As the sovereign has the power to decide what rights the civilians have, the constitutional rights that people have may vary from country to country. The people do not know exactly what the sovereign might do to them but they have no choice, the civilians are effectively agreeing to the sovereign simply by living in the state of which the sovereign is in power.
Hobbes's favour of an absolute government was supported by neither the parliamentarians nor the royalists. Hobbes believed that people under a sovereign are not allowed to rebel even if the sovereign is not doing its job properly. The right for them to rebel against their own sovereign is taken away; they may not reserve the right to avoid the sovereign from executing them. It is possible that in certain circumstances this type of system could slide from an absolute government to a more authoritarianism system.
Locke's view was that it was the people who mattered, not the government. He believed that a government should not be put in power to decide what property was and who should own property, but that a government should be established primarily to protect the people and their property. Locke's theory of contract states that if a government is failing to do its job, by not ensuring the security of property and the people, then the people should overthrow their government. It is not just their right to rebel against their government under these circumstances but it is their obligation.
Locke thought that if people decided to rid themselves of a government they would still own property. He believed that property would exist in a state of nature along with other important qualities like natural law and punishment.
"[The state of nature is] a state of liberty...The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."
If man decided to overthrow his government, society would not crumble. People would simply look to establish a new government.
According to Locke, man cannot hand over all his rights to a sovereign, as he cannot own himself. Locke believed that if a man can't kill himself then it would not be possible to commit himself to an absolute government. When committing to a government man does not necessarily have to sign a contract or take an oath, he can be committing to a government just by accepting the protection which the government provides; this is called "tacit consent" or "unspoken consent".
Hobbes and Locke had very different theories and it is plausible that Locke was aware of Hobbes ideas and was keen to challenge them. Hobbes believed that in the state of nature people would be so suspicious and terrified of one another that this alone could lead to war. Locke on the other hand thought that in a state of nature people would have a fair sense of moral, life would be quite civilised as there would be natural law.
Hobbes and Locke were alike in that they both believed that man would to agree to establish a government as they wanted to protect their property and themselves, The difference between there theories is that Hobbes believed that there could be no property before a government is established, as the government is put in place to tell people what their property is. Locke believed that property would exist in the state of nature, although he accepted that property would be better protected if there was a government.
Hobbes and Locke had different views on how civil government was established. Hobbes thought that sovereign power was established by men agreeing to hand their rights over because they could not trust one another; Locke believed that a man could not hand his right over as he did not own himself. He believed that a government would be established by men entrusting a king or parliament to protect their property.
Locke also believed that men could rebel against their government if it was not doing it job properly, for example if it was threatening the people or their property. In contrast to this Hobbes had a strong belief that opposing your sovereign or government was not acceptable, he thought that you should not rebel against your government under any circumstances. Hobbes believed that if the government was overthrown for any reason, men are obligated to put another sovereign power in place.
Word count - 1705
Bibliography
An Introduction to Political Philosophy - Jonathan Wolff
Oxford University Press
Political Philosophy, A very Short Introduction - David Miller
Oxford University Press
Annie Paterson Hobbes and Locke
