Justice: A Natural Law or a Social Construction? Essay

Introduction

Hobbes and Locke were both natural law theorists and social contract theorists. However, both Hobbes and Locke arrive at different conclusions regarding the existence of justice in the state of nature. Hobbes indicates that in the state of nature, “nothing can be unjust… Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice” (Hobbes 78). Locke, on the other hand, contends that even in the state of nature, human beings are inclined toward justice. Locke writes, “The state of nature has a law of nature that determines how it is governed, which obliges every one” (Locke 9). This paper explains why Hobbes and Locke reach such different conclusions about the existence of justice in the state of nature. The paper will also give a personal opinion on why Hobbes is more compelling than Locke.

The differences in their views

First of all, it is fair to mention that the different comprehension of the human nature of both theorists is the main aspect of their conflicting studies. Whilst Locke sees people as creatures of reason, Hobbes considers human beings as creatures of desires. Another reason for their different conclusions is the fact that they understood the aspect of rights differently. In fact, when the view of Locke is considered, it is found that Locke viewed certain rights as autonomous of the state or government (Locke 10).

Hobbes, on the other hand, viewed rights as emanating from the state. In the end, both Hobbes and Locke come to agree on a rather plan ground that, in the state of nature, human behaviors are supposed to be guided by the laws of nature. They only agree on plan ground, not in totality as Hobbes’s laws, as it has already been mentioned, are far less secure when compared with Locke’s studies. In fact, this is also another explanation or reason as to why in Locke’s school of thought, people seek to have greater security.

The belief of Hobbes that justice does not exist in the state of nature

No doubt, the concept of justice is one of the most litigious aspects of the Leviathan. In fact, Hobbes does not ascribe to the view that there are some moral higher values introduced by a supernatural being (Hobbes 80). There is no right or wrong in the state of nature, according to Hobbes. He further argues that there is justice only where there is no shared power. In other words, no injustice exists where there is no law. Hobbes’s argument here is pegged on the assertion that something unjust only exists in the situation where it has been advanced by the sovereign. These words, the concepts of unjust and just, are just employed by people when making known their distastes and desires (Hobbes 81).

According to Hobbes, these concepts (injustice and justice) refer to something only under the control of the state. Hobbes further asserts that, because there is no control in ‘The State of Nature,’ it, therefore, goes without saying that there is no justice (Hobbes 90). Using an example of an industry and the aspect of cooperation, Hobbes emphasizes that because it calls for the co-operation of people to produce any consumables, there is nothing like an industry. This analogy leads him to conclude that it is not possible for two persons to reach an agreement because of the distrust.

The view of Locke that justice exists in the state of nature

In Locke’s state of nature, people are at liberty to determine their actions and even dispose of their possessions, as and when they want, within the confines of natural law. In other words, the idea of justice as enunciated by Locke has premised on the sense that law is a reason and that the state of nature has laws of nature that determine actions that people can take. Locke uses the phrase “law is the reason” to mean that reason teaches inhabitants in the state of nature that “people should not inflict harm on others ” (Locke 16).

Locke further argues that wrongdoings of this kind are punishable. In fact, Locke’s view of the state of nature seems to emanate partly from theological belief. In short, Locke believes that justice abounds in the state of nature because of the following reasons: in the state of nature, people not only used to keep their promises but also honored their responsibilities (Locke 12).

Locke also indicates that even though some states were relatively insecure, they were good, pleasant, and peaceful. According to him, all these values can only exist in a place where justice reigns. He argued that people in some states endured peace because of property rights (Locke 13). With these observations, Locke indicated that in a nation where inhabitants were allowed socially to punish those who did wrong to them, like in the case of the American frontier, then a state of nature existed in that nation. In other words, the people of that nation are perfectly in a state of nature.

Justice is both a social construction and a natural fact

This happens because, as a social construction, justice is being advanced based on the behaviors or conduct of human beings, and as a natural fact, justice reigns in the mind of people. As a social construct, justice entirely controls the behavior of people who ascribe to the same laws or who live in one place. As a natural fact, it is common sense for any person to know or differentiate what is right and wrong.

Hobbes’s view of justice is more compelling than Locke’s

This is best understood when the time of their writing is considered. For Hobbes, the state of nature was real as he wrote at a time of heightened civil unrest; it was characterized by a fear of death (Locke 11). Thus, even though his points ascribed to science, it can be said that his views were informed by the civil war and chaos, where the state was very insecure. Locke, on the other hand, wrote after these events, and his writing was highly informed by the realities or aftermath of the civil war (Locke 20).

That is why he reached his positive view regarding the state of nature and the position of man in statehood. Via whichever perspective, though, it can be seen that there are far-ranging differences in their conclusions. However, when their views are closely examined and analyzed, it can be seen that although the state of nature of Locke sounds like a place where people would want to live, his methods of arriving at his conclusion are weaker than those of Hobbes. Since Hobbes has used scientific and logical framework to arrive at his conclusions, his findings can be considered as stronger and compelling.

Conclusion

In short, both Locke and Hobbes were highly divided in their opinions because they had a different understanding of many aspects that made up the state of nature. Some of these aspects include human nature, Knowledge of natural law, Civil Society, Rights, and the responsibility or role of the State or government. In terms of the law, Locke argues that people know what is wrong or right and are in the position of knowing what is unlawful and lawful in a manner that makes it easier for them to resolve conflicts. Hobbes, on the other hand, argues that in a state of nature, human beings cannot know or even tell what is rightfully theirs and what does not belong to them.

When it comes to civil societies, Locke holds the view that civil societies create the order as well as grant authenticity to the government. However, Hobbes indicates that civil society only exists when the state applies force for compliance. In other words, civil societies are created by the state. In terms of the role of the state, Locke argues that the only key responsibility of the state is mostly to ensure that justice is not just seen but also must be done or served. Hobbes, on the other hand, argues that a society is created by the state, and this is prevailed upon by the wishes of their sovereign. In short, the differences in the ideas advanced by Locke and Hobbes lie in their understanding of the above concepts.

Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. New York: Continuum Press, 2007. Print.

Locke, John. Locke: The Second Treatise of Civil Government. New York: Constitution Society printer, 1998. Print.