Thomas Hobbes and John Locke: political philosophy comparison

Locke Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke offer two views of the human condition. What political systems emerge from a Lockian point-of-view? Which would be a good fit for Hobbes' philosophy? Which of their positions best fits your view of humanity and why? Contemporary connections: Do you see the ideas of Locke and Hobbes in any of our current public political or social conversations?

Perhaps the best way to create a distinction between the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke is to remember the phrases that are most associated with their very different philosophies of governance. According to Hobbes, human life without the guidance and oversight of a sovereign like a king is nasty, brutish, and short. This does not mean that Hobbes believes that people are evil. Rather, people are inherently self-interested, and without the punishment of the legal system, they will take whatever they can get, without compunction. People must be governed with fear, not by reason. Without a sovereign the strong will overpower the weak. Thus, it is better to have a king, even a bad king, than the complete and total anarchy that is the likely result of a society that allows for too much human freedom and choice.

Locke's most famous phrase, in contrast, is that all human beings have a right to life, liberty, and property. This phrase is echoed in the American "Declaration of Independence." Locke believed that all human beings are valuable, and have rights that cannot be trampled upon by a king. A king is only a human being, and a monarch's rights should not be so inviolate that the sovereign should be allowed to ignore the rights of other human beings. Laws are only necessary to protect individual rights, to prevent murder, violence, and theft, for example, not to limit all freedom because of a fear of anarchy. Thus democracy, or at least a Parliamentary monarch with limits upon kingly power is better, in Locke's view than monarchy, because it allows for more people to voice that their rights are being violated or need protection. Unsurprisingly, a product of the American system of democracy, I am inclined to agree with Locke!

But the Locke vs. Hobbes debate continues. It is often seen in debates about education. People who take a dark view of humanity in its raw state stress the need for more moral education in schools, and wish to place limits upon student freedom and choice about what they can learn. Lockians are willing to allow for a bit more anarchy and creativity and diversity within schools. Also, rather than stress greater police control and a law-and-order society in general, Lockians would place greater emphasis civil liberties, for fear of allowing the police too much power when they are doing their duty.

Question 2: The goals of the philosophies were meant to exercise a set of ideals. Which common tenets of enlightened thinking do writers Mary Wollstonecraft and Denis Diderot advance in "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" and the selection from "Encyclopedie." Contemporary connections: Discuss how you see the tenets you identified in these works as having informed/influenced our contemporary experience.

Although Mary Wollstonecraft speaks about the rights of women specifically, her "A Vindication of the Rights of Women" stresses the value of rationality and reasonable discourse in keeping with Enlightenment principles that were particular to many other Enlightenment thinkers, including Diderot. Wollstonecraft argues one of the defects of male oppression of women is that it limits female education, and makes women more irrational. When men criticize women, men have essentially created a self-fulfilling prophesy. Women have not been allowed full venues to enrich themselves, which is the right of all human beings. Rational thought and education, Enlightenment thinkers such as Wollstonecraft, saw as the true purpose of human life.

In Denis Diderot's "Encyclopedie," the values of the Enlightenment over past superstition are advanced for all humanity, both men and women. Diderot saw understanding the world, rather than obeying the tenants of faith as the true purpose of human existence. Like Wollstonecraft saw ideas about female empowerment as rooted in outdated and cruel customs and superstition, Diderot saw Catholic dogma and social institutions that limited people's ability to express thoughts freely, experiment, and maximize their potential, as damaging to the true purpose of human life. Enlightenment thinking's embrace of reason, the individual, and a rejection of past tradition are all reflected in Diderot's distain for accepting authority based upon history, and his belief that the human mind could set us all free.