Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Compare and contrast Thomas Hobbes’s and John Locke`s state of nature.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English political philosopher who wrote in the 17th century and was compelled to flee to France for eight years as a result of the dominance of civil war at the time. John Locke (1632-1704), on the other hand, was an English political philosopher and physician who was regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the modern period.
Hobbes and Locke utilized the state of nature as a hypothetical situation to illustrate the need for a social contract, which leads to the creation of a valid political body yet their differing views on nature lead them to different and conflicting judgments about what sort of government should be established. Locke has a more positive view of nature and believes that it is controlled by natural law. To contrary Hobbes, he distinguishes between the condition of nature and the state of war. ‘Enduring peace,’ according to Hobbes, is inextricably linked to the condition of nature.
In Leviathan, Hobbes makes it clear that equality has terrible implications. This means that Hobbes feels that everyone is harmful to each other because of their inherent equality. According to Hobbes, the two are inextricably linked in a state of tension between equality and enmity.
If two people want the same thing but can’t have it, they become adversaries and try to destroy or dominate one another.
Hobbes had a severely gloomy view of human nature. Initially, Locke’s description of the man in the state of nature resembles Hobbes’. And Locke believes that man is born with freedom and equality, which leads to a natural condition of pure freedom and equality, in which no one has superiority over anyone else or supreme authority over anyone else.
Locke’s description of human nature in Second Treaties appears to be based on natural theology, as a result of his involvement in the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century. Because of this, he began to think that mankind is ruled by Reason in their natural condition, which he also refers to as the ‘Law of Nature. God’s goals are at the heart of natural law, according to Locke. As a result, he argues men do not have the right to self-destruction and neither do the creatures he owns. . In addition, Locke believed that the natural law guaranteed every individual’s right to self-preservation and that mutual preservation was also a moral responsibility.
In Locke’s view, man’s sense of morality is naturally produced by reason, and they are able to distinguish between the righteous and the evil within the rules of natural law. This means that individuals are aware of what behaviors are acceptable. Thus, in Locke’s words, it is a State of Perfect Freedom to organize their [men’s] Actions and dispose of their Possessions and Persons as they judge right, within the confines of Natural Law.’ That is, while men are equal and free in their natural state, there are binding laws in this state that serve to protect one’s life and property. Hobbes does not hold the same beliefs in natural theology as his counterpart, which led to him developing a different interpretation of Reason and natural law. In this way, Hobbes opposes Locke’s sense of morality, which is based on classical moral philosophy. Hobbes’ interpretation of nature is basically amoral since he declares that in the situation of men that have no other Law except their own Appetites, there can be no general Rule of Good and Evil Actions. This demonstrates that Hobbes, as a supporter of New Science, rejects the notion that men are born with a traditional sense of morality. Individuals are incapable of selecting their actions and understanding what is right and wrong because these conceptions have no significance or value in the condition of nature. Hobbes considers man to be an embodiment. They will frequently act in accordance with their interests and pleasures, the primary one being self-preservation, as a result of passions, cravings, and aversions, which means they will often act in accordance with their interests and pleasures, the primary one being self-preservation.
For Hobbes, the state of nature is a state of license since he defines it as a place where ‘every man has a Right to everything; even one another’s the body. In the state of nature, Hobbes claims that as long as this natural Right of every man endures, there can be no security for any man. This implies that the current state of nature has a dreadful meaning. Hobbes interprets this state as fundamentally a state of war. For him, it is an endless state of conflict, anarchy, and bloodshed because everyone can benefit from infinite liberty and hence no one can be certain of self-preservation. The challenge stems from the need to maintain peace in this situation, in which first, competence, secondly, diffidence, and thirdly, glory’ urge men to do whatever it takes to gain supremacy over others in order to preserve themselves. The importance of self-preservation in Hobbes’ Leviathan cannot be overstated, as Hobbes contends that man’s need for self-preservation is heightened by his constant fear of death. This fear is the primary driver of the state of war, leading citizens to conclude that certain rules are required to put a stop to this terror. Hobbes claims that these principles when understood rationally, tell the man to seek peace and reject the state of conflict in order to ensure his own survival. However, this can only be achieved if an individual’s thinking process is changed into collective rationality, which drives individuals to reject the state of nature entirely. After men manage to escape this horrific state, the subsequent natural rule, which is merely based on barter, requires men to give their entire freedom in the state of nature to a Sovereign thus exchange of their safety with the tyrant. As a result of Hobbes’ third natural law, ‘men obey their pledges made’, and the famous social contract is born. Hobbes’ state of nature makes it obvious that collective rationality, which is required to overcome the state of war, cannot be attained without an absolute sovereign to enforce the bounds, punish transgressors, and so on, in order to sustain the agreement. Contrary to Hobbes, Locke distinguishes the state of nature from the state of war by claiming that the former is a condition of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation and the latter is a state of enmity, malice, violence, and mutual destruction.’. Locke discusses this change in the Second Treaties as follows Men living together rationally, without a common Superior on Earth, with Authority to decide between them, is the proper state of nature. However, force, or a declared intention to use force against the person of another, if there is no common Superior on Earth to seek redress, is the State of War.
While some of their ideas are similar, there are a plethora of significant discrepancies in their understanding of the state of nature. For example, Locke considers the law of nature to rule over the state of nature, in which individuals and their property are not always in danger. Hobbes’ state of nature, on the other hand, is one of war, which leads men to believe that they must continually be on the lookout for peace.
Furthermore, Locke and Hobbes reach a similar conclusion that natural law works to ensure self-preservation. However, while Locke believes that it is permissible for individuals to carry out the law in order to punish the perpetrator, Hobbes believes that the only way to impose the law is to cede authority to a Leviathan that can successfully provide security. The disparities between each notion of the state of nature stem, to a large part, from their disparate conceptions of human nature. Both of them eventually propose the construction of a superior authority, namely an impartial judge for Locke and an absolute ruler for Hobbes, in order to deal with concerns arising from the state of nature, which can be accomplished through the establishment of a social contract. However, Locke and Hobbes do not experience the same shift in power as a result of this pre-societal stage. This is due to the fact that the two philosophers completely differ in form. The type of government that should be built and the type of agreement that should be accepted by persons
The turbulence of the state of nature, according to Locke, stems from the fact that each and every person is a judge in his own right, making it critical to construct a social contract among men in order to pursue justice. However, this can only happen if everyone agrees, as Locke says, ‘it is not every contract that puts a stop to the state of Nature between men, but only this one of deciding together unanimously to enter into one community…’ There are several reasons for this. First, Locke rejects the idea of a top-down shift to the status of free individuals in nature. He views constitutional monarchy as the optimum form of government since it allows individuals to retain some control over their lives.
Considering Locke’s work, the concept of property is fundamental. It’s important to remember that despite the fact that men gain property in the state of nature, it can never be insured without men giving up their own authority to a civil government that can legitimately provide justice and defends their inherent rights as well as their property. Hobbes’ state of nature, on the other hand, does not have a central function for property, because ownership is impossible in this state. Consequently, Hobbes focuses more on the preservation of human life than their property in order to prove his legitimacy as a government. To terminate the state of war and transform their community into a civil society, Hobbes imagines a social compact. Hobbes, on the other hand, favors a forceful form of governance due to his disdain for the natural human state. Conflicts generated by human nature can only be resolved by a government with full power. A Sovereign defines all the rules and decides what is right or wrong in society, allowing individuals to relinquish their absolute freedom. Hobbes’ Leviathan is empowered to pass laws as a result of the covenants made by individuals. and enforcing them only for the aim of promoting peace and prosperity The essential axioms of Hobbes’ ideal system are clearly force and coercion, which serve to terrify individuals in order to prevent them from breaching the contract.
The last but not least significant distinction between Hobbes and Locke is that, according to Locke, if the government itself violates natural law, it loses its legitimacy. Individuals can revolt against a corrupt government and finally overturn it, according to Locke, because it has a constitutional rather than absolute power. Hobbes’ viewpoint is more problematic since he argues that when people submit to their Sovereign and give up their right to rule, they also give up their right to rebel against their Sovereign, as this would be an unjust act and would violate the covenant.
In conclusion, the comparison reveals that their beliefs contradict each other on fundamental matters such as human nature, the social compact, and the form of governance, among others. Despite the fact that each philosopher’s account is essentially consistent, their positions are almost wholly contradictory.
References
- (John Lock,1689) Two Treatises on Government, Book II, Sect 27.)
- Huhne,Thomas.2012 `The state of nature` in John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.( Munich: GRIN Verlag)
- Locke, John and Rod Hay. 2000. Two Treatises of Government. 1st ed. (Hamilton, Ont.): (McMaster University)
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.