Introduction
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are two well-known liberal contract theorists who have made significant contributions to political theory. Their perspectives on what constitutes a just political society diverge. Both Locke and Hobbes provide insightful views on nature, which in turn inform their divergent ideas on political institutions and government. The primary texts analyzed and contrasted in this article are Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” (1980) and Hobbes’ “Leviathan” (2008), with the aim of identifying the regimes they legitimate.
Hobbes’ State of Nature
Hobbes famously described the state of nature as “the war of all against all.” This is how Hobbes saw it. According to Hobbes (2008), individuals are inherently competitive and self-centered, driven by an unshakeable will to live. This perspective is rooted in his belief that humans, in their natural state, are constantly in conflict due to their pursuit of self-interest and the avoidance of harm, as stated in his seminal work, “Leviathan.”
Therefore, Hobbes argues that competition and self-centeredness are inherent traits driven by the fundamental human instinct to secure their own survival. The natural world is therefore perpetually unstable and full of strife. Hobbes describes such a state of affairs as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 2008, Chapter XIII). Hobbes contends that individuals logically unite, create a social contract, and surrender their natural rights to the Leviathan, a sovereign authority, to escape this chaotic situation. This total authority prevents the chaos and carnage inherent in the natural state by maintaining order through its monopoly on power.
Locke’s State of Nature
In contrast, Locke’s state of nature is based on the idea that individuals are reasonable creatures with the capacity for reason, which allows for the existence of a natural rule governing conduct. According to Locke (1980), humans have an innate right to life, liberty, and property in their natural state. Most importantly, Hobbes exaggerates the notion that nature is inherently erratic and violent.
Instead, Locke envisions a state of nature in which people can coexist peacefully and respect one another’s rights. In this instance, people behave in accordance with a natural law that requires them to respect and defend the rights of others. It is possible because Locke (1980) maintains that in the absence of external coercion or a higher authority, individuals are capable of collaborating amicably, settling disputes logically, and defending their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property.
Hobbes’s darker view of nature, which maintains that conflict and selfishness are the core characteristics of human nature, contrasts with this. He does acknowledge that conflicts might arise, though, which is why forming a social compact is necessary for the development of a civil society (Locke, 1980). In this society, the government’s power to protect natural rights is constrained by the agreement of the governed.
Visions of Ideal State
Their divergent interpretations of the natural world give rise to notable disparities in the regimes they justify. Hobbes (2008) makes the case for the Leviathan, a type of totalitarian government. According to him, the only thing that can maintain peace and prevent natural conflict and violence in the world is an all-powerful, ultimate authority. People give up their inherent rights in return for safety and order, and the Leviathan’s power is unbridled. This is a centralized form of government, headed by a single sovereign who has all authority and is not answerable to the people.
In contrast, Locke (1980) legitimizes a government that differs significantly from Hobbes’ Leviathan. In Locke’s limited republicanism, the consent of the governed serves as the basis for the government’s power. Under this system, preserving and defending natural rights—more especially, life, liberty, and property—is the primary responsibility of the state. To ensure that the government does not violate people’s rights, Locke emphasizes the importance of the rule of law, the separation of powers, and checks and balances. Furthermore, Locke contends that people still have the freedom to change or overthrow a despotic government. This emphasizes the value of individual liberty and self-governance even more.
Implications for Government
These differing viewpoints will have a significant impact on the government. The result of Hobbes’ (2008) Leviathan is a highly centralized, authoritarian government in which the populace has little to no control over decision-making. On the other hand, Locke’s (1980) limited republicanism advocates for a more responsible and participatory form of government, predicated on the concepts of consent and the safeguarding of natural rights. In addition, Locke’s political theory does not rule out revolution if a government is unable to carry out its objectives.
Put another way, the organization of political power is greatly influenced by the differences between Hobbes and Locke about the nature and purpose of government. Locke’s theory is based on the rights of the naturalized citizen, consent, and the potential for citizen-driven revolution; in contrast, Hobbes (2008) claims that there is a highly centralized, authoritarian state with little space for individual participation or influence. These opposing political philosophies reflect the broader, ongoing debate over the nature of power and governance in society, which has influenced political theory and the global development of political systems.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the disagreement between liberal contract theorists, such as Locke and Hobbes, over what constitutes a just political system can be explained by their divergent views on the nature of the state of nature. Hobbes’s natural state, which is characterized by conflict and chaos, leads him to endorse the authoritarian Leviathan system of governance. Locke’s natural state, on the other hand, leads to a limited republican government that emphasizes individual liberty, consent, and the protection of natural rights. In this condition, individuals may coexist and respect one another’s rights. Their divergent views on nature and human nature influence each other’s understanding of politics, governance, and political institutions.
References
Cahn, S. M. (2011). Classics of Political and Moral Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Hobbes, T. (2008). Leviathan (J. C. A. Gaskin, Ed.). Oxford University Press.
Locke, J. (1980). Second treatise of government (C. B. Macpherson, Ed.). Hackett Publishing Company.
Machiavelli, N. (2003). The prince (G. Bull, Trans.). Penguin Classics.
Machiavelli, N. (1996). Discourses on Livy. University of Chicago Press.