This paper examines two foundational questions in early modern political philosophy. The first part analyzes Thomas Hobbes's account of human nature in Leviathan, arguing that Hobbes viewed humans as essentially equal in ability, which inevitably produces conflict, and that only a powerful sovereign — the "Leviathan" — can impose order. The second part investigates John Locke's position on slavery in "Of Civil Government," demonstrating that Locke's emphasis on natural freedom and self-ownership led him to condemn slavery as fundamentally incompatible with human dignity. The paper also draws a historical connection between Locke's philosophy and the eighteenth-century abolitionist movement in England and America.
Two of the most influential thinkers in the history of political philosophy, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, offer sharply contrasting visions of human nature, government, and freedom. The questions explored below — what Hobbes believed was the essential character of humankind, and whether Locke condemned or condoned slavery — reveal the depth and enduring relevance of their competing frameworks.
Hobbes contends that despite the fact that most people believe there are massive differences in strength and intelligence between individuals, we are all essentially equal. While minor differences between people do exist, individuals generally tend to overestimate their own strength and intelligence and underestimate those of others. Therefore, the gap between any two people is usually not as wide as we make it out to be.
This equilibrium, according to Hobbes, is the ultimate cause of conflict, because "from this equality of ability arises equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies" (Leviathan, ch. 13, 11–14).
As a result of this fundamental equality and the conflict it produces, humankind will live in a constant state of war unless people are able to stand in awe of someone or something that possesses far greater strength, intelligence, and power than they do. Without such a superior entity to control them, humankind's brute nature will take over and conflict will inevitably persist: "For the laws of nature — as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to — of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge and the like" (ch. 17, 70–74).
For Hobbes, peace and harmony can only truly exist when the masses are willing to hand over their power to a chosen few. These elite can then control the barbaric nature of the masses by giving them someone "superior" to look to for guidance and by ensuring that the laws generated to create peace and harmony are enforced. Without that almighty "Leviathan" to prevent endless battle and conflict, humankind would be destined for self-destruction.
According to Hobbes, this powerful sovereign entity can emerge in one of two ways: either by force of nature, or by society choosing whom they trust to govern their affairs. This political commonwealth "by acquisition" is charged with the "making and executing of good laws, to which individual persons may apply their own cases" (ch. 30, 137–138). Since it is human nature to act in a combative manner when not under strict control, Hobbes contends, it is only logical that a strong central government acting as this vehicle of control will succeed in creating cooperative relationships among humankind, as opposed to the perpetual state of conflict designated by nature.
What this ultimately implies, however, is a kind of "puppet master" control in which citizens are expected to blindly accept the decisions of the "experts" they have chosen to represent their best interests. While in an ideal world, officials and elected leaders would always act with the public's best interests at heart, in reality self-interest is typically a very large part of the equation. This is especially evident in modern society, where corruption and politics have become practically synonymous. While it may be said that ignorance is bliss and that knowledge brings torment, one must ask: what is the purpose of a life in which blind obedience is the common rule? The very reason conflict is part of human nature is that people are born to be free thinkers — not mindless machines that simply perform as instructed.
John Locke condemned slavery because he valued human freedom above all else. The emphasis in Locke's view of the social contract is clearly placed on diversity of judgment and choice within a context defined by each person's ability to act according to his own will — that is, each person's ability to act freely. According to Locke, people do not truly have the freedom to follow their own wills when their conduct is governed by the chosen few elite that Hobbes advocated. When people are controlled by government in this way, the possibility arises that they are no longer acting according to their own wills.
This, to Locke, is a form of slavery, because it denies people the freedom to make their own choices: "And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation, to every one of that society, to submit to the determination of the majority" (ch. 8, 57–60). Since slavery involves the complete and total power of one individual over another, it was clearly a contradiction of Locke's core beliefs.
"Self-ownership as grounds against slavery"
"Locke's ideas echoed in European abolitionism"
You’re 67% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.