Locke and Hobbes – Social Contract, Essay Example

1. Relationship Between Citizens and State

According to Hobbes (1985), the power is the Government’s, and therefore, those who are governed should be living by reverse golden rule. They do not have power; the Government does. The forces from the government impact the lives of those governed. (Morris, p. 5.)

Locke, however, builds his social contract model on trust instead of force. While Hobbes assumes that the government’s force impacts the governed, Locke states that this force is trust of the governed towards the government and vice versa. As the governed has rights to replace the government they have the real power.

Reviewing the two theories, it is important to note that the social contract is based on different forces at the two authors; While the contract is determined by the force, according to Hobbes, Locke states that it is built on trust.

Interestingly, the role of government is completely different according to the two authors. While Hobbes states that sovereigns keep the order and make people obey rules, Locke suggests that people choose those who serve them the best based on trust.

1.a. Rights of the Ruled

According to Hobbes, the state of nature is the state of war, and this means that the only force keeping people from attacking each other is the power of the government. Therefore, while people are born with equal rights, but give these up for protection from the monarch. They make a “covenant of every man with every man”. (Hobbes, 1985. p. 481.)

The reason why he does not agree that people should be given power is that no people can be trusted to govern themselves. Still, this model does indicate that when people have no say about the governing and rule, they are unable to replace abusive monarchs.

Locke, however, looks at democracy which is retaining people’s rights to life, liberty, as well as owning a property. The main opposing idea of Locke in contrast with Hobbes’ Leviathan is that people can be trusted to govern themselves. By giving them the right information, they are equally capable of making decisions. The sole purpose of the government, therefore, is not to set rules and make decisions on behalf of people but to protect individual rights. In this model, people are able to call back a government that is abusive or corrupt. This is because men should preserve the rest of mankind, and this preservation provides individuals with the rights to punish those who threaten or take away one’s personal rights to health, liberty, property or life. (Locke, 2003. p. 497.)

2. Locke’s Toleration Views and Christianity

Locke states that there should be a new type of understanding between government and the church. According to him, the churches are also the tools of the society to prevent civil unrest. Limiting and controlling religions would result in unrest, and therefore, tolerance should be practiced. On the other hand, he states that: “the care of souls is not committed to the civil magistrate, any more than other men. (Locke, p. 562.) This clearly states that Locke’s view is not solely Christian but promotes the tolerance of governing bodies towards Christianity. As a church is a “free and voluntary society” (p. 563) it is independent from the state. However, Locke also considers the powers of church leaders similar to the power of the government. This said, no earthy power should be provided for church leaders and they need to be controlled by the voluntary society that formed. Moral discipline is also needed to allow individuals to have the right to practice faith. The limit of toleration is when a religion does not settle for its natural place in the society, and then toleration should be reconsidered and trust withdrawn. Atheists should not be tolerated at all, though, because “’Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist”. (p. 565.)

According to Locke, the sole purpose of the church should be to serve people’s faith. This means that they should be independent of politics, material goods and ideologies other than the Scriptures. They have an important role in providing people with the teachings of morals, and this should be enough to make them obey the rules. This statement opposes the ideology of Hobbes about the law of nature and positive law.

3. Common Law of Nature – Hobbes

While Hobbes is stating that “the law of nature needs no proclamation” (p. 467), he also concludes that there is a need for sovereigns. This seems contradicting at first, however, he explains his thesis later. He states that besides natural law, there is also a positive law. These positive laws are attributed superiority. According to him, positive laws are there to support and preserve the principles of natural law, and that is why there is a need for a force originated by the ruler.

The simple explanation to the two contradicting statements is also provided by Hobbes: “The law of nature and the civil law contain each other and are of equal extent.“ (p. 468.) Sovereign power is there to make people “obey the rules”. Vice versa: the commonwealth civil law is also a part of the natural law, according to him. However, this statement also concludes that some people would have superiority over others in interpreting moral rules and the laws of nature. In this view, the authority of the Church when interpreting scriptures would also be unquestionable.

One might ask why people would need sovereigns and the Leviathan when the laws of nature are in place. The answer, reviewing the ideology of Hobbes seems to be simple: people are not to be trusted to make decisions. Therefore, they would not follow the laws of nature on their own accord, and there is a need for a ruler to create positive rules. While the law of nature is the foundation of the positive law, without the existence of the latter it would not be obeyed to by people. Hobbes’ natural law theory was neither a natural law theory and legal positivism.

Conclusion

The two most quoted theories by political scientists are the ones of Hobbes and Locke; usually described as confronting each other. While they are depicting and idolizing a different political and social structure, their methods of examination are similar. The main difference is that while Hobbes claims the need of a ruler to make people obey the rules, Locke focuses on their rights to grant or withdraw trust.

References:

Hobbes, Thomas. (1651, reprint:1985)Leviathan. Ed. C. B. Macpherson. London: Penguin. In: Bailey, A. (2008) The Broadview Anthology of Social and Political Thought. Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press, 2008. Print. (p. 413-490)

Locke, John. (1689, reprint: 2003) Two Treastises of Government. Ed. Mark Goldie. London: Everyman, In:Bailey, A. (2008) The Broadview Anthology of Social and Political Thought. Peterborough, Ont: Broadview Press, 2008. Print. (p. 496-534, pg538-547, pg561-565)

Morris, C. (1999) The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. Rowman & Littlefield p. 1-56