Hobbes vs. Locke: Social Contract and Human Nature Compared

Introduction

Hobbes and Locke both agree that the social contract plays a key role in determining the political stability of a state. However, despite this agreement, their philosophies are grounded in different visions of human nature. Both philosophers wrote of a period they called the state of nature — the period prior to the establishment 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, though with different rules and conceptions.

This essay considers the similarities and dissimilarities of both philosophers' ideas on the social contract and the formation of civilized societies. Specifically, it compares and contrasts Locke's doctrine that "every man hath a right to … be executioner of the law of nature" with Hobbes' 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 ceases only in death, and that consequently everyone has an equal "right of nature."

Locke's Doctrine of Natural Rights and the State of Nature

According to Locke, in order to rightly comprehend political power, it is important to understand the natural state of man — a perfect state of freedom to act, dispose of possessions, and govern oneself within the law of nature, without needing to rely on or ask leave of another man. An equality state is one in which jurisdiction and power are equal, meaning people possess equal power. As a result, men are equal, free from 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 to dispose of his possessions or person, he has no liberty to destroy himself or the creatures under his ownership. The law of nature governs the state of nature; this law obliges and teaches every man that since everyone is independent and equal, there is no need to harm others in health, life, possessions, or liberty (Locke, 269).

Locke proposes that humankind is the workmanship of an infinite Creator; men are the wise maker's property and thus endure as He pleases, not as other men please. No man has authorization to willfully abandon his station; he is therefore bound to preserve himself. When a man's self-preservation is not in competition with another's, he ought to preserve other men as well — unless justice requires that an offender who harms another or fails to preserve life, health, liberty, or property be punished accordingly (Locke, 270). A genuine quandary arises here: if self-preservation requires counter-attack, is it righteous to kill in order to conserve?

Locke goes on to explain that men are neither allowed to invade the rights of others nor to harm one another. He offers an explanation for how rights are enforced in this condition: every man has the right to execute the law of nature within that state, meaning everyone is equally empowered to punish transgressors to the degree necessary to prevent further violations. Just as all laws concerning mankind would be useless without enforcement, the law of nature would be ineffective if no one in the state of nature had the power to execute it — protecting the innocent while restraining offenders. Moreover, if one man in the state of nature may punish another for wrongdoing, all mankind in that same state may rightfully do so, since in a condition of equality, where no jurisdiction or superiority of one man over another exists, what one man may do to prosecute the law, all mankind has the right to do (Locke, 271).

Nevertheless, although man has power over another in the state of nature, none is permitted to exercise arbitrary or absolute power driven by heated passion. Such power may be assumed only to punish the transgressor as dictated by conscience and for justified causes proportional to the offense. The question that arises here is: is punishment not itself filled with passion, and what limits its extent? When an offender transgresses the law of nature, he chooses to live by a rule other than that of common equity and reason, rendering himself dangerous to all mankind (Locke, 272).

Locke on Punishment, Injury, and Civil Government

Locke proposes that legislative authority allows a state or prince to punish or even execute an alien for violations of the law of nature (Locke, 273). Beyond crimes against nature, it is also possible to harm others through injury. The injured man, in addition to having the right to punish the offender, may also seek reparation. Other men in the state of nature who find it just for the offended party to seek reparation may also join in to help recover from the man who caused harm, to the satisfaction of the injured (Locke, 275).

According to Locke, men would inevitably doubt this doctrine, claiming it is unreasonable for the offended man to serve as judge in his own case, since he will base his judgment on passion, nature, and revenge, taking punishment too far and causing disorder and confusion. To remedy the grave inconveniences of the state of nature, Locke proposes civil government as the solution. Those who object to this remedy should note that men ultimately make up absolute monarchies as well. Locke concludes that the state of nature is nonetheless preferable, since a man submits to the law of nature rather than to the unjust will of another man (Locke, 277).

Finally, Locke affirms that men remain in the state of nature until, by their own consent, they become members of a political society. Men are naturally bound absolutely by the laws of nature, without ever requiring a solemn agreement or fellowship to make that obligation binding (Locke, 279).

Hobbes' Doctrine of Power and Human Nature

In Hobbes' first doctrine, unlike that of Locke, he addresses manners — the decency of human behavior, including how men should greet one another and conduct themselves in social settings, as well as moral matters more broadly. These attributes enable men to live with one another in unity and peace, given that life's felicity does not consist in a satisfied mind's repose.

According to Hobbes, unlike in the books of the old moral philosophers, there is no such thing as a summum bonum — a supreme good. He explains that a man whose imaginations, senses, and desires have come to a complete standstill cannot truly live. Felicity, in his view, is the continual progression of desire from one object to another, with the attainment of the former serving as the path to the latter (Hobbes, 160). Therefore, all men's voluntary actions are geared not merely toward procuring a contented life, but toward assuring it. Because men are diverse in passions, knowledge, and opinions, their desired effects vary accordingly.

For this reason, Hobbes identifies a restless, perpetual desire of power after power as the overarching inclination of all men — a desire that ends only in death. He attributes this endless pursuit to men's inability to assure the power and means of living well that they have already attained without acquiring still more power, generating enmity, competition for riches, and inclinations toward contention, honor, and war (Hobbes, 161–164). Competitors attain their desires by subduing, killing, repelling, or supplanting one another. Men are thus exposed to wounds and death for the same underlying reasons. Those who are hardy, discontented, or ambitious — particularly military men — are inclined to further the causes of war and sedition when denied the honor they seek, and hope to better their condition through change. Hobbes relates this kind of desire to the need for protection by a power greater than one's own (Hobbes, 165–167).

Just as in Locke's doctrine, Hobbes explains that men are equal in nature; however, the equality he describes is limited to body and mind. For instance, a physically weaker man can still kill a stronger one through confederacy with others or through secret machination (Hobbes, 189).

Conclusion

Both Hobbes and Locke agree that men have equal rights and power in the state of nature. However, according to Locke's doctrine, men make judgments with regard to the law of nature, whereas in Hobbes' doctrine, the law of the Gospel comes into play. Locke supports a system in which every man has the right to punish based on reason and judgment. Hobbes proposes a sovereign as the ideal form of government, while Locke offers civil government as the ultimate solution to the shortcomings of the state of nature.

In the government proposed by Hobbes, men have the right to vote for the head of government through a social contract, and the majority's decision must be accepted by minority voters — a stipulation that appears to contradict the reasoning of equal rights. Moreover, Hobbes' treatment of the fool is not without merit: in a practical society, inalienable rights and government do not exist in a vacuum, as each is dependent on the other. There must therefore be a balance between the two. Alienable rights can only be guaranteed to a certain extent, and government cannot be absolute — it must be held in check by the people.

References

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Ed. C. B. Macpherson. New York: Penguin Books, 1985.

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Ed. Peter Laslett. Student Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.