¶ … John Locke's and Thomas Hobbes' Doctrines Hobbes and Locke both agree on the argument that social contract plays a key role in determining the political stability of a state. However, despite this agreement, their philosophies are both based on different visions of human nature. Both philosophers wrote of a period which they called state of nature (period prior to establishment / creation of societies) in which man was described by individuality rather than collectivity. Both Locke and Hobbes also wrote of how man was able to leave this state and form civilized societies that however have different rules and conceptions. This essay considers the similarities and dissimilarities of both philosophers' ideas and works on social contract and the formation of civilized societies. This paper compares and contrasts fully and critically Locke's doctrine that "every man hath a right to ... Be Executioner of the law of nature" with Hobbs doctrine that, "in the first place, I put for a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power" that ceaseth only in death" and that consequently everyone has an equal "right of nature."

Locke's Doctrine

According to Locke, it is important to understand the natural state of man; which is the perfect state of freedom to take action, get rid of possessions and people accordingly, within the law of nature, without the need to either rely on another man or ask for leave; in order to rightly comprehend political power. An equality state is when jurisdiction and power are equal, meaning people having equal power. As a result, men are equal without subjugation or subordination. This is the undoubted sovereignty and dominion right of man (Locke, 268).

Although this is a liberty state, it is not a license state, despite man having uncontrollable liberty in such state to absolve of either his possessions or person. On the contrary, within the same state, man has no liberty to either destroy the creatures under his ownership or himself. The law of nature governs the state of nature; this law obliges and teaches every man that uses it that since everyone is independent and equal, there is no need to harm other persons in health, life, possessions or even liberty (Locke, 269).

Locke proposes that humankind is the workmanship of an Infinite; men are the wise maker's property and thus last as He pleases, but not as other men please. Further, no man has the authorization to willfully leave or quit his station; thereby he is bound to conserve himself. Therefore, when a man's self-preservation is in no competition, he ought to conserve that of other men, unless due to justice when an offender impairs or takes the life of another or fails to preserve the life of mankind, their health, liberty, possessions or even property (Locke, 270). There is quite a quandary here; if self-preservation requires counter attack, is it righteous to kill to conserve?

Locke goes ahead to explain that all men are neither allowed to invade the rights of others nor hurt each other. Here again, common rights may create conflict. Locke proffers the explanation towards such requirement in that, every man has the right to execute the law of nature within that particular state, meaning that everyone is given the right to equally punish that law's transgressors to an extent and effect where its violation is prevented. And, like all other laws in the world that concern mankind, the law of nature would be useless if there was nobody within the state of nature with the power to execute it for the protection of the innocent whilst restraining the offenders. Moreover, if a man in the state of nature can punish another for evildoing, everyone mankind in the same state can also rightfully do so -- Because in that particular equality state, where no jurisdiction or superiority exists of a man over another, what a single man in that state can do to prosecute or execute the law, all mankind has the right to do (Locke, 271).

Therefore, despite man having power over another in the state of nature, none is allowed to use either arbitrary or absolute power with regards to his own heated or passionate will. Such power will be assumed only to punish the transgressor as dictated by conscience and for justified causes, as the offender deserves. These are the only reasons a man would be allowed to bring harm to another through punishment. The question that arises here is, isn't punishment filled with passion, and what limits the...

(Locke, 273). Other than violating the law of nature (crimes), it is also possible to harm other men through injury. The injured man, other than having the right to punish the offender, can also seek for reparation from the offender, as he also has a common right to do so. Other men in the state of nature, who find it just for the offended to seek reparation from the offender, can also join in to help recover as much from the man who caused harm, to the satisfaction of the injured for harm afflicted (Locke, 275).
According to Locke, men would definitely doubt the strange doctrine, claiming that it is not reasonable for the offended man to be a judge in his own case because he will base his punishment on passion, nature, and revenge, taking the judgment too far, causing disorder and confusion. And, to remedy the great inconveniences of the state of nature, Locke proposes civil governments as a solution. The people objecting to this solution should note that men ultimately make up Absolute Monarchs. However, Locke concludes that the state of nature is much better because a man submits to the law of nature, rather than to unjust will of another man (Locke, 277).

And finally, Locke affirms that men are indeed in the state of nature (natural state), and stay so, until by their personal consents, allow themselves to become members of a society of politics. Men are naturally bound absolutely by the laws of nature, without ever settling for a solemn agreement or even fellowship (Locke, 279). It is difficult to understand how this argument agrees with societal inclinations of men.

Hobbes Doctrine

In Hobbes' first doctrine, unlike that of Locke, he talks of manners. He explains man's decency of behavior; how men should salute each other, pick their teeth when in a social setting, and also on moral matters. These attributes of mankind enable them to live with each other in unity and peace, considering that life's felicity does not comprise of a satisfied mind's repose.

According to Hobbes, unlike in the old moral philosopher's books, there is no such thing as Summum Bonum. He explains that a man whose imaginations and senses are at a stand, and desires at another end, cannot live any more. According to him, felicity is when desire progresses continually from an object into another, with the former at a stand, despite being on the way to attaining the latter (Hobbes, 160). Therefore, all men's inclinations and voluntary actions are not just geared towards procuring a life of content, but assuring it; this result from the fact that men are diverse and have diversified passions, in addition to having diverse knowledge, and opinions, eventually resulting to desired effects. For this reason, Hobbes places a restless perpetual (persistent and endless) desire of power after power as an overall inclination of all men, which only ends when men die. This desire of endless power is also attributed by Hobbes to men's incapability of assuring power and ways of living well, which they have already attained, without acquiring more power or command, enmity, competition to riches, inclination to contention, honor and war (Hobbes, 161-164). This is due to the fact that competitors attain their desires by subduing, killing, repelling or even supplanting each other. Hobbes goes ahead to explain that men are also exposed to wounds and death for the same reasons. However, men who are hardy, needy and not content with their current life or condition, just like all ambitious men of the Military command, are bound to further the reasons behind war and cause problems and sedition for the lack of Military honor, hope to turn things around through a new change, except for the war. Hobbes relates this kind of desire to leisure and ultimately, the protection offered by some other kind of power than the men's own (Hobbes, 165-167).

Just like Locke's doctrine, Hobbes explains that men are equal in nature; however, the equality is limited to the body and mind. For instance, a weaker man can kill another with body strength through confederacy with other men, or secret machination (Hobbes, 189).

Also, just like Locke's doctrine, Hobbes asserts that…