This paper examines the philosophical similarities and differences between Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on the nature of human freedom and liberty. Both thinkers emerged from seventeenth-century English society and shared an empiricist foundation — the belief that all knowledge derives from sensory experience. However, their conclusions diverge sharply. Locke grounds human freedom in natural equality before God and a Law of Nature that obligates individuals to respect one another's rights, while Hobbes defines liberty as the absence of external impediments and roots his Law of Nature entirely in self-interest. The paper traces how these differing premises lead each philosopher to a distinct vision of legitimate government and the social contract.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke each formulated notions regarding human liberty in nearly the same social, political, and provincial circumstances. Although their most famous works were separated by approximately forty years, both were wealthy members of seventeenth-century English society during a period of particular social and religious turmoil. Similarly, both Hobbes and Locke sought to use reasoning to determine the most appropriate form of political and social organization. It might be anticipated, therefore, that their fundamental conceptions of freedom would share many similarities. However — aside from their initial premises — Hobbes and Locke vary widely in both their approaches to the topic of freedom and the consequences they believe their lines of reasoning hold for society.
Locke has come to be regarded as one of the founders of modern political philosophy in the West, and rightly so. Hobbes, on the other hand, has continued to be celebrated for his philosophical construction of metaphysical materialism. Their ideas concerning freedom reflect these two drastically different perspectives and are, in fact, products of them.
The central premise that links Locke and Hobbes on the topic of liberty is that both believe all human knowledge comes into existence through the senses. To them, the human mind is analogous to a blank sheet of paper, waiting for our interpretations of sound, light, texture, and taste to write the story of what we perceive to be real. This position automatically denies that humans are born with any knowledge or drives toward complex action before receiving external stimulus.
Hobbes believes that "from sense experience we derive historical knowledge and prudence, and from reason we derive scientific and philosophical knowledge and reason" (McGreal 1992, p. 187). Hobbes thus holds that the information we receive from our senses can be used to draw rational conclusions through deductive thought. Locke likewise holds that "human knowledge is derived either from sense experience or from introspection" (McGreal 1992, p. 223). The minor difference is that introspection is not necessarily based upon deductive reasoning, yet still relies upon external information; knowledge may be inferred rather than deduced. Although both philosophers virtually agree on where knowledge originates, they use this shared idea to arrive at utterly divergent conclusions regarding the nature of man.
Locke uses this blank-slate conception of man to assert that all men are naturally in a state of equality. This makes up one of the natural states of man, the other being perfect freedom. He writes in his Second Treatise of Civil Government: "To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and to dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man" (Cottingham 1996, p. 487). This freedom, connected with equality, permits every man utter sovereignty over his own faculties and decisions — a freedom that results from the Law of Nature as Locke perceives it. The Law of Nature is arrived at through internal reflection upon the processes of the world and is discoverable through reason as applied to God's will.
To Locke, God created man in his own image, independent of the trivial classifications and divisions we place upon human beings; so, in the eyes of God, we are all equal. This equality demands that each man's sovereign rights to govern himself be respected. Recognizing this, Locke derives a natural law that ensures the freedom of individuals is complete, insofar as it does not interfere with the freedom of others. Essentially, the only restriction upon the "perfect freedom" man is born into is that the freedom of others cannot be interrupted.
However, this Law of Nature is not innately present in man's mental construction of reality; in other words, each man is free to choose whether or not he will abide by it. "It is the responsibility of each individual to enact the law of nature which binds them to perceive peace and refrain from harming one another" (Collinson 1987, p. 69). This aspect of Locke's freedom is a consequence of his belief in free will: morally, men are required to follow the natural law, but physically they will only follow it by choice. Humans therefore possess both freedom and will.
"Hobbes's scientific, materialist view of natural freedom"
"Hobbes's negative vs. Locke's positive definitions of liberty"
"How each thinker justifies government and sovereign authority"
Cottingham, John. (1996). Western Philosophy: An Anthology. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
McGreal, Ian P. (1992). Great Thinkers of the Western World. HarperCollins Publishers, New York, New York.
Strathern, Paul. (1999). Locke in 90 Minutes. Ivan R. Dee, Chicago, Illinois.
You’re 43% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.