Hobbes & Locke Comparison

Hobbes vs. Locke: Development and Expansion of Political Thought

Comparing and Contrasting
Hobbes Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government

This essay will compare and contrast several of the political theories on natural law, the need for government and structure thereof, as expressed in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. Similarities and differences of political theories are found in these two works, posing the question of whether Locke’s thesis is fundamentally different than Hobbes. A thorough examination of these two influential political thinkers demonstrates that Hobbes and Locke both provide significant development in political theory by investigating human beings in the state of nature and the consequential need for a sovereign. The two authors discuss the institution of the Commonwealth, the powers granted thereto as well the powers they suggest be retained by the governed. Although Hobbes insight is interesting and poses some valid theories, his pessimistic view of the state of nature, combined with excess power granted to the sovereign, makes his work understandably controversial. Locke discovers a similar need for a sovereign power but limits his power to rule by consent for the public good. Additionally, Locke’s characterization of the human beings in the state of nature establishes an optimistic and welcoming contrast to Hobbes. While Locke’s book certainly offers some parallels to Hobbes, Locke cultivated his own unique political philosophy, substantially distinct from that of Hobbes. On equality, Hobbes indicates that as a law of nature “all men are equal.” He suggests that because all men have equal faculties of the body and mind, that any man has the power to kill any other man. Furthermore, as a result of these equal abilities, men also retain equal hope to gain something only one may possibly attain, thus they become enemies seeking to destroy each other. Locke recognizes that as all men are created equal, no one man should have power over another. He further states that “equality of men by nature” establishes the foundation for “love amongst men” which gives rise to principles of justice and charity. On human nature, Hobbes cites that the three primary reasons men clash is competition for personal gain, mistrust due to concerns of safety and glory due to concern of reputation. According to Locke, it is man’s human nature to be a social animal, driven into society. Both Hobbes and Locke recognize a tendency in human nature for men to have a partiality toward their children. Hobbes defines the state of war as the condition where men live with no common “power to keep them all in awe.” According to Hobbes, there is a continual battle of every man against every man as it is their very disposition to fight. In the State of Nature, Hobbes argues there is no industry, culture, art, luxuries, improvement, navigation, knowledge of time, no letters or society and “worst of all continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and harsh. Furthermore, Hobbes contends in the State of Nature there is no propriety, no ownership of property, and no right or wrong, as there is no law because justice and injustice only exist in society. Locke distinguishes the differences, which he notes often go unnoticed, between the State of Nature and the State of War. Locke indicates that the State of Nature is peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation. There exists a perfect freedom both in actions and disposition of possessions as they are unbound by law. Locke defines the State of Nature as “men living together according to reason without a common superior.” In the State of Nature man has the right to criminal recourse “proportionate to transgression.” In the event there is no common superior of which to appeal relief, Locke indicates that the State of War exists. This State may exist even in society, such as where a man is robbed at gun point and he has authority to defend himself by killing the robber, as there is no time to appeal the action. During a State of War there is “malice, violence and mutual destruction,” the only rule is force and violence and man may destroy any man who makes war against him. Man has the power to kill a murderer who has killed unjustly. If while living in the State of Nature someone attempts to take your freedom, assert power over another man or assert force or even the design of force, a State of War is created. When the force asserted has ceased, the State of War ceases. According to Hobbes, a natural right exist to liberty in protection of one’s nature or life in the manner he deems fit. However, both Hobbes and Locke assert it violates a fundamental law of nature to take your own life. Hobbes states that while in the State of Nature, Laws of Nature provide that “every man has right to everything, even to one another’s body.” Locke indicates that a man’s person is his property and belongs to no one but himself. Hobbes provides that it is a fundamental law to “seek peace and follow it” and to defend one’s self. In asserting peace, man must ascertain that the other man is in agreement. Hobbes states the law of nature provides “whatever you require of others, do to them.” Locke asserts that a “community of nature” arises as we are all made by one maker and thus we must abide by rules beyond “reason and common equity.” Thus it is a Law of Nature, according to Locke, that we must not harm another man in “his life, health, liberty or possessions and we must secure man and mankind from injury and violence. In the event peace and safety are threatened by transgression of another, it is a Law of Nature for man to hold the offender responsible. What drives men to form government? Hobbes speculates that passion insights men to seek out peace as they fear death. Similarly, Locke states government was created by God to control bias and violence in men. Self-love will cause man to be biased and to have passions toward revenge creating “confusion and disorder. ” Hobbes also indicates a desire for “commodious” things that lead them into an agreement. Locke suggests that property is unsecure in the State of Nature causing one to seek out society for protection. Hobbes contends, the only way to defend against foreign invasion and injustices of one to another, is to obtain a common power and give all “power and strength upon one man or upon an assembly of men, that may reduce their will by plurality of voice, unto one will. Locke contends that people seek out government to form a society of “mutual preservation of lives, liberties and estates.” Although there are privileges to be found in the State of Nature, men seek out society in order to establish laws to preserve property. Locke indicates men give up the “power of punishing, to be exercised by such alone, as shall be appointed to it amongst them; and by such rules as the community, or those authorized by them to that purpose shall agree on.” The transferring of rights, Hobbes contends can be by completed by renouncing or transferring by words or actions or both, either express or by inference. Locke indicates that in order to be subjected to the power of government, one must give consent either express or tacit. Once consent is made by everyone in the society, the will of society is governed by the majority creating an obligation on everyone in society to comply. In the case of express consent, membership of society is clear. In the case of tacit consent, said consent may be expressed by enjoyment of the rewards of the government or owning of property subject thereto. One who holds tacit consent may choose to release his duty to the government by disposing of his property which will return him to the state of nature or to another government. According to Hobbes, a Commonwealth may be instituted by either acquisition by force or submission. The only difference between these two institutions is that under the first, it arises out of fear of the sovereign and in the second, it arises out of fear of one another. Hobbes provides that in the event a majority in a congregation grant consent to a sovereign the remaining members must consent or be destroyed. By entering into the congregation a tacit covenant to be governed is made. In the event one chooses not to consent, according to Hobbes, they will be returned to the State of War wherein they may be “destroyed by any man whatsoever.” Locke argues that when princes and rulers govern independently a government is not formed and the society remains in a State of Nature. Under Hobbes theory, an artificial man called the Commonwealth is formed which can do no injustice or injury, as it is the judge of all, the sole legislator, interpreter of all laws and appointer of all offices. Hobbes theory vests absolute liberty in the Commonwealth, not in men, and the Commonwealth may judge as is most conducive of its benefit. According to Hobbes, the Commonwealth remains in existence until it is no longer able to protect its community, in which case, the men return to the state of nature, or in the event the government is overthrown, the victor inherits the right to govern. Locke’s theory provides that the legislative and executive must govern according to the public good, establishing common laws. The legislature cannot raise taxes, or take property from man without consent. They are also prohibited from transferring their power. A prerogative power rests in the executive in order to do any acts necessary, even outside of the law, for the good of the people. The powers retained by the governed, according to Hobbes, rests solely in those actions not taken away by the sovereign with the exception of the inability to force one to kill or maim oneself or to testify against oneself for a crime. Locke contends that supreme power is retained by the community. While Hobbes and Locke each noted equality among men, their discussion of equality differs greatly. Hobbes emphasizes equality as a negative trait resulting in men, in the State of Nature, ultimately seeking to destroy one another. In contrast, Locke suggests that in the State of Nature, this equality shall ensure no man has power over another suggesting a state of non-subjecation. He further provides that equality of men is the foundation of love leading to principles of justice and charity. On the issue of equality Locke provides the more convincing argument by providing a political theory that ensures equality. In my chart on Powers of Government, I also notated an additional quote from Locke guaranteeing equal treatment in application of laws be provided to the rich and the poor. While the allegations made by Hobbes could be accurate, they don’t depict the ideal of equality in political theory and Locke’s evidence is more convincing. On human nature, Locke suggests that man is social by nature, whereas, Hobbes cites three qualities which could arguably be found in differing sections of Locke’s work also cited as weaknesses of man. While they agree on the bias a parent gives to a child, Locke indicates “tenderness for their off-spring” while Locke stresses the bias applies mainly to male children whom are more “naturally fitter than women.” Hobbes comment again raises the issue of whether he truly believed in equality of men. Considering the limited amount of quotes from either author directly on “human nature,” I am going to reserve judgment on the most convincing argument on this matter until further investigation of the State of Nature and Laws of Nature which each provide more insight on the subject. One of two major differences in Hobbes and Locke’s theories is found in their understanding and view of the State of Nature. The differences in opinion rest mostly on the distinction pointed out by Locke between the State of Nature and the State of War. According to Hobbes in the State of Nature men are ignorant, can’t understand the nature of the earth or even comprehend the passage of time. Hobbes indicates this State arises whenever men are not governed by a common power. Hobbes argues in the State of War men are unable to determine the difference between right and wrong and there is no recognition of ownership of property. Hobbes argues this condition arises where there is no common “power to keep them all in awe.” In contrast Locke establishes that in a State of Nature there is peace, good will and a perfect freedom, among other things. This State of Nature arises whenever “men are living together according to reason without a common superior.” The notable difference is in the term reason, for in Locke’s account the State of Nature allows for reason, while Hobbes depicts ignorance and complete lack of control. Locke’s most convincing argument is found through his establishment that the State of War could exist even within society, thus further weakening Hobbes argument. Although there are some similarities in the nature of man established in the comparing quotations, Locke emphasizes these qualities arise in the State of War rather than the State of Nature, thus creating a huge barrier between the two author’s theories. The State of Nature alluded to by Locke is the most compelling. On the Laws of Nature, Hobbes and Locke clearly agree on the one fundamental law that a man cannot take his own life and the ability to defend oneself in order to achieve peace. Beyond that, the two theories collide. Hobbes again argues men in a State of Nature can do anything they see fit to protect themselves, while Locke establishes limitations and expands the theory of self-defense to protection of mankind. Finally, the authors offer greatly divergent views as to the ownership of another’s body, which Hobbes’ argues is right of every man, while Locke establishes the ownership of one’s body is the first form of property ownership. Again, I found Locke’s arguments more convincing and the arguments contained in these two sections further affirm the differing views of human nature between Hobbes and Locke. The reason men seek a political society is the area in which these two political thinkers most closely parallel. Both indicate the advantages of a political society to defend against the weaknesses and brutality of man. The only diverging theory is that Hobbes assessment finds the most compelling reason for seeking out government is fear of violent death whereas Locke’s assessment focuses more on the need for preservation of property. The correlations between both authors between the State of Nature and the need for government offer an interesting concept of political philosophy. Both arguments are convincing. The transfer of rights and institution of the commonwealth need to be combined in order to fully understand the impact between these two greatly opposing theories. The primary difference in the role of the proposed Commonwealths is the application of consent. Locke affirms the necessity of consent in forming of a Commonwealth throughout the Second Treatise. This concept appears to be Locke’s primary contribution to political theory in the institution of government. Similar to Locke, Hobbes indicates consent to be governed by the sovereign is necessary. However, he then deviates indicating that it is only necessary that a majority of the community consent to sovereignty, signifying that if one chooses not to consent, he will fall back into the State of Nature and be subjected to death by any man. Hobbes provision that a Commonwealth may be instituted by force or acquisition further reflects that consent to be governed is not a concern of Hobbes. The differing view of the two authors on this issue is yet another example that Locke is not Hobbes light. Finally, the powers of government and of those retained by the governed offer another significant difference in Hobbes and Locke’s political theories. With the small exception that both authors intended for the government to make laws and the extensive prerogative power found in Locke’s executive, the powers conferred differ profusely. Hobbes’ all powerful sovereign is granted an alarming array of powers combined with no accountability and the express provision that liberty rested in him rather than in the men. Conversely, Locke establishes an institution wherein the rights of the community reign supreme and the very purpose of government is to serve the public good. As explained in detail above and throughout my color coded chart of quotes attached hereto, I do not see any evidence that Locke is Hobbesian. In fact, the two books are in stark contrast in many respects. Parallel theories are discussed in many instances throughout the two works, however, in most respects the theories do not align. The primary similarity in the two works is both authors’ attempts to use human beings in the State of Nature to establish the need for government. Beyond that I found many disparities, primarily in the definition of the State of Nature, the role of Consent and in the investing of powers ultimately in the community. As I previously alluded to, I found Locke’s work the most sound. Locke sets forth values on equality of men specifically providing that no man should have power over another. In today’s society, Locke’s assertion seems common sense. However, I realize that this assertion was significant in Locke’s time. Hobbes’ mention of equality of man was undermined by other provisions such as his appointing a Sovereign with rights above all others, his reference to the benefit of having a boy child rather than a girl, and in his derogatory use of the concept. Leviathan does not set out the need for equality of man in a political sense. Rather, it established that men are equally capable of killing one another. Hobbes theories on Human Nature, the State of Nature and Laws of Nature were also more sound than those proposed by Hobbes. Although, I must admit that man possesses many of the weaknesses which Hobbes alludes to, I believe that Locke put those weaknesses into perspective in his belief of the character of man in the State of Nature coupled with his altered definition of the State and solid explanation that the weaknesses of man exist in the State of War, not simply in the State of Nature. Both authors lead to similar and reasonable conclusions on the reasons men seek to form government. I am unsure of whether the fear of death or of protection of property provide the most sound reasoning as both views are plausible. The Transferring of Rights and Institution of Government as proposed by Locke are by far the most sound. As previously indicated, I must applaud Locke’s theory on Consent and was implored by Hobbes permitting acquisition by force as a legitimate means of instituting government. Consistent with the foregoing, I must also acknowledge that I found Locke’s theories related to powers of the government and powers retained by the governed as the most sound. Governing by consent in an institution wherein the community is the supreme power is a government I believe most citizens would desire as opposed to the disturbing Commonwealth created by Hobbes. Hobbes, Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise provide informative and enlightening political philosophies. While Hobbes query into the State of Nature and its correlation to the need for government likely prompted Locke’s similar investigation, Locke expanded on the theory, and introduced other compelling theories of government as well. Although the Second Treatise does offer many parallels to Leviathan, Locke most certainly created his own political philosophy, one which substantially influenced America’s founding.