SSC151

My assessment “Locke versus Hobbes”

Although the political views of both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke influenced the
era of Enlightenment, they have different perspectives regarding natural law,
mankind’s natural characteristics, and the purpose and structure of government.

First of all the ideologies of Hobbes and Locke differ concerning natural law.
Hobbes states that there are two opposing elements that include his view of natural
law. He mentions that the first law of nature is to “seek peace, and follow it,” but, if
this advice does not prove beneficial for mankind, the second law of nature states
that by any means necessary, mankind must “defend ourselves” from the rest of
the population through violence. Locke, on the other hand, states that natural law
presupposes that all humans are created equal and independent, or “no one ought
to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” Resorting to violence is
unacceptable for humanity unless there is a danger that an individual’s freedom is
being threatened.

Hobbes and Locke not only disagree with regard to natural law, their views on
mankind’s natural characteristics are different as well. Hobbes states that
mankind is "self interested" and that life “is a condition of war of every one against
everyone”. Man is constantly in opposition with others due to envy and lack of
trust for the other. Therefore left alone in nature man inevitably creates war.
Governments need to be established in order to maintain a sense of community in
society. In opposition, Locke’s views of mankind are that the “natural liberty of man
is to be free from any superior being on earth.” As long as mankind maintains this
sense of freedom in society, peace will prevail for mankind.

The purpose and structure of government reveals another difference between the
perspectives of Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes states that nature is a state of war and
that government is necessary because it helps society to get away from its natural
state. Hobbes thinks that mankind will never be able to use reasoning faculties in
order to solve pressing issues unless they are form societies governed by an
absolute ruler. This ruler does not govern the people under the “Divine Right
theory”, but remains in power as long as this can be maintained through force.
Locke clearly disagrees with Hobbes as he believes that state of nature is freedom
and that governments are only formed in order to preserve this. He mentions that
governments need to break away from rule by “absolute, arbitrary power” and
switch to democratic governments, where there is rule by the majority. According
to Locke it is the monarchies deny freedom to humanity and it is this freedom that
characterizes mankind. No one has the right to govern anyone else’s body without
the willing consent and approval of the individual, which occurs in the form of
voting.
A social contract is an agreement between the people and the government for
preserving order. Hobbes identifies the ruler as a powerful sovereign or
“Leviathan,” which is the name of a sea serpent in the Old Testament that
presumably battled Yahweh. In Locke’s view the ruler must protect the people’s
natural rights and the people must give up some of their power to rule each other.
So in both cases the people’s obligation in the contract is to trade some of their
rights, power, and their desire to dominate in order to receive this protection.
Consequently with this type of protection comes also the punishment of those who
break the contract.

The government’s purpose is to keep the people content by not crossing their
boundary. Hobbes and Locke both agree that there can be occasions where it is the
right and the responsibility of the people to overthrow their government, in case it
becomes unstable and can’t follow through on their side of the contract. Otherwise
they are bringing revolt upon themselves. Hobbes states that the Leviathan must
be taken out of power when he fails to fulfill his side of the social contract and
Locke thinks that the government must be overthrown when any of the people’s
God-given rights are taken away or lost.

As mentioned earlier I find the principles behind the arguments of Hobbes and
Locke to be quite different. Hobbes seems to believe that mankind is evil and
constantly in opposition with the rest of mankind, where Locke clearly maintains a
sense of optimism regarding man’s interactions with each other. This inevitably
leads to different views regarding the government because Hobbes concludes that
it’s necessary to accept a ruler with absolute control over the population, while
Locke insists on democratic governments that respect the freedom to individuals
within society.
Francis Devine’s assessment “Locke versus or with Hobbes?”

Although clearly different from mine I find mr. Devine’s assessment interesting as it
applies Hobbesian philosophy to a model of absolute democracy, where (usually)
people apply his viewpoints to either absolutist totalitarian or monarchial regimes.

The writer theorizes that “If the majority were to rule, rights viewed as fundamental
in the American tradition would be, at least at times, abolished.” As this hasn’t
happened, he addresses the “bipolarism” within the American political system
based on where Locke’s and Hobbes’s different perspectives both meet.

In this he hypotheses that Locke’s ideas to have their foundation rooted in Hobbes’s
and consequently there should be overlap or even consensus.

No law can abridge the legislative power of the sovereign. Hobbes further
eliminates restrictions on the sovereign based on the law of nature. The laws of
nature, he argues, are not properly laws. Locke on the other hand reasons that like
any law, the law of nature would be in vain if it had no executive. In the state of
nature no one has superiority or jurisdiction to be such an executive. Therefore,
everyone must be the executive for the law of nature in the state of nature. As it
therefore "serves not, as it ought, to determine the rights-of those that live under
it, especially where everyone is judge, interpreter, and executioner of it-and that in
his own case." the law of nature is, the writer concludes, by Locke's definition of
law, not law, only in the most tenuous sense is it natural. Human nature is
unknowable.

Laws, according to Hobbes are the commands and prohibitions of whoever has the
sovereign power. No law made by a sovereign can be unjust, since common law is
nothing but reason, when both refer to the sovereign's reason. But authority, not
wisdom, makes laws.

However if there are (indefeasible) rights that can stand against laws, then the
sovereign may be restricted in the scope of his authority to legislate, regardless of
the merits of the content of his legislation. A right should therefore been seen as a
(positive) liberty. By this small concession on Hobbes’s behalf to the rights of
subjects, small, carefully constructed, and reluctantly given as it is, he gives an
opportunity Locke, using the same modern concepts can argue for rights which
restrain the authority of the sovereign. Thus the writer concludes that Locke's basic
concept of law does not differ significantly from Hobbes's.

He further sees parallels between Hobbes and Locke when it comes to the
unreliability of reason as a legal standard. This leads Locke to turn to authority
based on consent for the establishment of law. In the state of nature, the individual
has the right to judge offenses for himself and punish them, where this threat of
force against oneself establishes the right of war, the right to kill the threatening
assailant. Thus a difference of opinion of fact or guilt creates a situation paralled to
Hobbes's state of war, complete even to the right of preemptive attack. The state of
nature is therefore, as Locke sees it, an "ill condition."
Because individuals have perfect freedom and equality, they have a right to
preserve their life, liberty, and property, and to judge and punish offenses against
their right. Hence arise the inconveniences of the state of nature, and the transfer
of the authority to legislate, judge, and punish to the society. Only by such a social
contract does the state of nature end. Because individuals are free and equal, their
consent is necessary to the formation of society. In any such society where the
joining is free and spontaneous, the law making belongs to the society itself or to
those authorized by it. So the power of society becomes identical with the authority
of those appointed to use it. The validity of laws for Locke, as for Hobbes, comes to
rest, not on reason, but on consent.

From Hobbes’s viewpoint in order to avoid a state of war each assents to the
sovereign, and to the law defined by the sovereign as right reason. Anyone who
fails to assent remains in the state of war. Thus Hobbes insists that the subjects are
the authors of all the judgments of the sovereign. By the social contract everyone
submits his will and judgment to that of the sovereign; one gives up his right to
self-government and instead authorizes the actions of the sovereign. Individual
reason must be sacrificed to authority for the sake of preservation.

Where Locke seems to disagree is that there are limitations to the lawmaker's
power, as he divorces law from reason and limits the legislative power by its
purpose, the protection of rights. This is the power the people have given up only
the power necessary for the ends of society. Any exercise of power beyond this
authorization constitutes tyranny and thus the people may take any steps they
judge necessary and return to the state of nature.

However the greater part of the people in the prudential calculation of the
probability of success of such an appeal cannot be equated with a majority,
according to the writer a term Locke is not reluctant to use where appropriate. The
defense of absolute democracy in Hobbes, and the defense of indefeasible rights in
Locke are quite parallel to a point.

The writer therefore rhetorically concludes that in the end he finds the position of
Hobbes’s absolute democracy more appealing as he states: “given a democratic
sovereign, there would be no disagreement between Hobbes and Locke that the
majority of the people should rule.”

What I find interesting is that he previously informed us how such a Hobbesian

democratic sovereign would rule: ”A sovereign may, but will not, attack the lives of
the subjects; to do so is unprofitable . Sovereigns love their own power; it depends
on their subjects.” and further “To have security of property against the world one
must pay the bill to his sovereign.”

This personally leaves me with the impression that the writer has a somewhat
Machiavellian perspective on power. According to my own assessment this might
have been applicable to mr. Hobbes, but is not something I would be able to
identify with mr. Locke’s views on either the role of the state or its subjects
aspirations of a “life of liberty and in pursuit of happiness”.