Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have laid down the foundations of Western political philosophy and the social contract theory. Few philosophers and political thinkers have made a greater contribution towards the understanding and evolution of society and politics as Locke and Hobbes. The study shows that the sovereign authority was not a party to the social contract and it had supreme control over civil, military, judicial, and religious powers. This is achieved from the pieces of writings of both authors.
¶ … Nature by Hobbe and Locke
Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, bases his argument of an all-powerful and unlimited government on a scientifically modeled reasoning. He asserts that it is only a sovereign and an all-powerful government that has the authority to attract full obedience from the subjects thus preventing them from resorting to violent acts of rebellion, chaos, and violence.
Hobbes uses the desire-aversion principle and the man's insatiable desire for power to argue out his concept of the state of nature. He asserts that in the absence of ultimate power, humanity co-exists in a state described as equality. Equality implies that all humankind have expectations that equally match their individualistic fulfilled desires. Further, they bear equality in their desire fight for the unlimited resources as well as kill. Using deductive reasoning, Hobbes then argues out that eventuality of this state of affair is "war of every man against every man." In a state of equality characterized by limited resources, then people are bound to enter into a state of competition for the resources. Since it is impossible to share the resources equally, and the mindset of vulnerability that each individual in this state feels, then people are compelled to the principle of being the first one to strike. This then triggers out a self-defensive mechanism as each person attempts to protect the power they possess. This situation is characterized by constant fears of violence, as the concept self-preservation takes pre-eminence. In such an environment, it is utterly impossible for civilization to develop (Hobbes, 2011).
In such a state where everybody is struggling to safeguard their power, Hobbes argues out that all self-preservation acts would be justifiable. As such, for fear of continued conflicts and violence, the people in this environment enter into a contract based on mutual respect where each one of them agree to give up their right to everything in the certainty that the others would also so the same. Unfortunately, this agreement is based more on trust. In this sense, this move still presents problems, as the uncertainty of the actions that others may take cannot be based on trust only (Hobbes, 2011).
Hobbes further asserts that natural man would explore all alternatives to secure peace. Man must therefore enter into a contract of limited rights. Hobbes finds out that the viability of the contract is impossible as long as the state of nature still exists. It is at this point that humankind decides to give up his call for state of nature and transfer the power to a single institution. As such, the central power becomes sovereign and it is representative of all those who signed the contract. Hobbes concludes by saying that it is this sovereign power than ensures peace and civilization (Hobbes, 2011).
John Locke, in Second Treatise of Government, takes a different perspective regarding the state of nature and the idea of unlimited government. Both Locke and Hobbes agree on the fact that, in a state of nature, man would exist in a state of equality and utmost desire for self-preservation. However, unlike Hobbes, Locke discounts the concept that has an absolute right to everything at this state man and would have a constant war just for the sake of preserving his powers. In other words, Locke disagrees with the idea of first strike as an intervention of vulnerability for the sake of preserving ones powers. He further disagrees with the assertion that state of war cannot be avoided in a state of nature (Locke, 2006).
Both Hobbes and Locke concur on the fact that there exist inherent laws, which natural men can solely identify as indispensable precursor for peace to exist. On this, Locke terms this law of nature as humankind's responsibility to exploit all means to safeguard his individualistic life as well as not to intentionally take part in jeopardizing another person's life or right to possession. The crucial turning point in the mode of reasoning between Locke and Hobbes emanates from their perception of human psychology. For instance, Hobbes argues out that it is the man inherent desires to want everything to himself that discounts the entire law of nature and makes single sovereign power indispensable undertaking. On the contrary, Locke argues out that man's inherent ideology of community consolidates the law of nature and makes it sufficiently powerful to exist on its own. Locke further asserts that man desire to live in the company of other fellow men is the driving force behind his sense of placing so much value on what other men think about him. In other words, any man who prioritizes his personal interests at the expense of the rights of his fellow humanity is considered to have acted in impunity. As such, he immediately triggers feeling of vengeance from the other men. Furthermore, such a man loses his respect from the rest of the members of in that community. This realization drives men to act naturally in compliance with the natural laws of nature (Locke, 2006).
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.