Hobbes and Locke, Research Paper Example

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Their Contributions to Social Contract Theory

Attempts to understand and explain how societies developed from a state of human existence where no such societies existed have fascinated and motivated political philosophers and theorists for centuries. The concept of the social contract, wherein individuals collectively agree to abdicate certain rights and liberties in exchange for the benefits wrought by societal organization has been at the heart of the political writings of generations of thinkers. Among the most widely known of these political philosophers are John Locke and Thomas Hobbes; each wrote important works about the social contract that have remained widely0read and enormously influential since their publications hundreds of years ago. Although Hobbes and Locke both address the basic concept of the social contract, and seek to understand and explain both why and how societies and states developed, each takes a very different view about the nature of man and society. This paper will examine the different perspectives offered by Hobbes and Locke, and will attempt to argue in favor of and against the ideas presented by each of them in terms of the applicability of these ideas to the social contract and the evolution of the state.

Thomas Hobbes

The fundamental premise of the social contract is that man existed in state of nature before the construct of societies existed. In this state of nature, argued Hobbes, life was “nasty, brutish, and short” (Locke and Laslett, p4, 1988). Hobbes’ treatise on the nature of the social contract and the formation of the state, The Leviathan, posited that the inherent nature of man was to live in a perpetual state of war against all others, fighting for and taking what he needed or wanted. In this context, posited Hobbes, the only way that the social contact could function was if the state was ruled by an absolute sovereign who held ultimate authority over all citizens (Rossides, p49, 1998). The individual citizens would have to abdicate some of their natural rights and freedoms in exchange for living in this society, and the ultimate power of the sovereign would ensure that everyone was treated fairly and equally in society. The title of Hobbes’ book comes from his vision of the state as a great, enormous creature whose body is comprised of the individual citizens of the state, and whose head is that of the sovereign who rules over all of them (Locke and Laslett, p4). This Leviathan is, as pictured by Hobbes, like a living creature, and in his vision of the state and of natural law, the conditions in which individuals lived in a perpetual state of war in the state of nature would be married by the way the states –having no greater authority over them- would interact with each other.

Hobbes takes a somewhat pessimistic view of human nature, arguing that in the state of nature all men will generally act out of selfish self-interest (Rossides, p49). In this view, all men are generally equal, at least in terms of their natural rights to act in their own interests. Absent the authority of a state of other ruling, controlling interest, there is no authority over the actions of man except for this personal self-interest. There is no safety, no security, in the state of nature; each individual is free to –and even required to- wage war against all other individuals to protect his or her own safety and to acquire those things needed for survival. Man has a “right to all things” in this state of nature, and questions about morality, or right and wrong, are more or less irrelevant in this context (Locke and Laslett, p5). The individual who is concerned about morality over self-preservation in the state of nature will not survive for long when pitted against those who act solely out of self-interest.

Hobbes is not necessarily arguing that the conditions in this state of nature are in anyway honorable or morally right; he simply takes what he sees as a realistic approach to understanding the conditions inherent in the state of nature, and argues that without the power of the state, and an absolute sovereign to rule that state, embracing concepts such as morality or right and wrong are at best irrelevant, and for all practical purposes are impossible. It is only by entering into a social contract that places the absolute power in a sovereign leader that it is even possible to establish conditions in which morality or justice are components of existence (Rossides, p50). The absolute power of the sovereign ensures that no individual citizens of the state will have unfair advantages over others, and in this context issues of morality or fairness or justice can be determined, settled, or applied by the sovereign head of the state. In essence, Hobbes argues for the existence of a totalitarian state, positing that this is the only structure by which true fairness and equality can be achieved.

As the social contract binds individuals together in this state, the conditions in which all people lived in a perpetual state of war are abandoned. Individuals are no longer free to behave entirely in terms of their own self-interest, but the abdication of these freedoms is, in Hobbes’ view, equitable and equally applied. As the Leviathan assumes the power that the individual once had, the state becomes an individual entity itself, and is now pitted against other states just as individuals were pitted against each other in the state of nature (Rossides, p50). As there is no higher authority than the individual state, each state now exists in what amounts to a new state of nature, and is free to protect its own self interest (which is, for all practical purposes, the combined interests of the individual citizens of the state).

John Locke

While Locke addresses many of the same issues that Hobbes addressed, he reaches quite different conclusions about the state of nature and the appropriate construction of social contracts as manifested in the power of the state. In written works such as Two Treatises of Government, Locke expounded on many of the same concepts as did Hobbes, such as the state of nature and the social contract, but reached different conclusions about each. In Locke’s view of the state of nature, man was not always locked into a state of perpetual war in what amounted to a nearly animalistic fashion as described by Hobbes. Locke saw the basic nature of man as being ruled by reason and tolerance, and it was these traits that Locke believed underpinned man’s conditions in the state of nature. Like Hobbes, Locke asserts that individuals have the right to embrace personal self-interest; unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that man’s inherently rational nature would inform and guide the ways in which this self interest was manifested. Living in a constant state of war was not particularly rational, and would not always assure that individual self-interests were protected as bet they could be. Locke believed that the idea of natural established this rational nature of man, and his views on this natural law would later serve as the philosophical basis for many political ideas about the political structure of capitalism (Rossides, p50).

In Hobbes’ view, individuals moved from the state of nature and entered into a social contract largely to bring an end to the perpetual state of war in which they constantly struggled. Locke took a different view; as he saw it, the decision to abandon the state of nature and enter into a social contract was an inherently rational move. It was not done out of fear of the perpetual battle between an individual and everyone else, but was done simply as a means of gaining the advantages inherent in a social construct while giving up as few freedoms as possible. In Hobbes’ rather pessimistic and mechanistic view of humanity, the only way to ensure that the state could and did maintain control over the individual citizens was if it was invested with absolute power (Locke and Laslett, p5). By contrast, Locke posited that the state should have powers that were as limited as possible while still ensuring the proper function of the state and the enforcement of the laws and rules that best protected the individual rights of the citizens Harrison, p191, 2003).

In Two Treatises Locke describes his ideal society and in so doing paints a far different picture than that offered by Hobbes. Locke’s views on the state of nature are not as dark and pessimistic as are Hobbes’, though Locke does recognize many of the same disadvantages that Hobbes sees. In the Lockeian state of nature, it is possible for those with greater physical strength to enforce their wills on those who are less powerful and the inherent equality of man is upturned by such inequities in physical power. The interest in entering into the social contract in the Lockeian perspective is not, however, reserved solely for those who lack the means to impose their will on others, but is instead driven by the rational self interest of all those who recognize the advantages to be offered by the state. In Locke’s view of the social contract, the individual citizens are not ruled by the dictatorial power of an absolute sovereign, but are instead ruled by the mutual consent of the governed (Harrison, p191). Recognizing from a rational standpoint that the structure of the state offers benefits that are not available to individuals living in the state of nature, the decision to enter into a social contract is made by the individuals, and it is the collective body of these individuals that the power of the state rests.

While both Locke and Hobbes have been enormously influential in terms of political philosophy and the understanding of the role of the state, each reached very different conclusions about the construction of societies and states in the context of social contracts. Hobbes envisioned a state of nature that would only be usurped by the power of an absolute sovereign imposing his will on the citizens of the state, whereas Locke envisioned individuals entering into a social contract as a rational choice, and on that could best protect their individual interests while also supporting the rights of others. In Hobbes’ view the ideal state was, I short, totalitarian, while Locke proposed a structure that was offered far greater personal freedoms and individual liberties. Locke’s writing had a significant impact on people like Thomas Jefferson, who incorporated ideas present by Locke into his work in establishing what would become the United States of America (Rossides, p51). While history has seen governments that have embraced Hobbesian and Lockeian views, it is the work of Hobbes that best underpins the development of contemporary representative governments, and serves as a model that has been followed by a great number of nations around the world.

Works Cited

Harrison, Ross. Hobbes, Locke, and Confusion’s Masterpiece. an Examination of Seventeenth-Century Political Philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print.

Locke, John, and Peter Laslett. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Print.

Rossides, Daniel W. Social Theory: Its Origins, History, and Contemporary Relevance. Dix Hills, N.Y: General Hall, 1998. Print.