Related question:
v Carry
out a comparative analysis of Thomas Hobbes’ and John Locke’ conceptions of
state of nature and natural laws.
(YOUR
INTRODUCTION)
THOMAS HOBBES AND
JOHN LOCKE AS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHERS
The
concept of social contract is and has been used to evaluate the political
relationship between leaders and rulers over the ages. Two major authorities
that go side by side regarding the social contract theory are ‘’Thomas Hobbes’’
and ‘’John Locke’’. Talking about the social contract, both these philosophers
presented a hypothetical (imaginary) account of a pre-political era, which they
referred to as, the state of nature. Basically, the underlying element of their
hypothesized ‘’state of nature’’ was their conception of man i.e. what they
believed and thought man is. Generally, the idea of the social contract is an
arranged agreement whereby the ruled and the ruler activate a covenant as to
how the state affairs should be run.
A COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS OF BOTH PHILOSOPHERS IDEAS
In
order to successfully carry out an analysis of both philosophers ideas, a
particular order should ensue, which is;
·
Their conceptions on the nature of man.
·
Their hypothesis on the state of nature.
·
Their postulations on the role of natural law in
human society.
·
Their justifications of the social contract.
THEIR CONCEPTIONS
ON THE NATURE OF MAN
Ø Thomas Hobbes
Understanding Hobbes’ ideal of the state of nature
begins with comprehending his conception of man. Hobbes viewed man as an
egoistic and selfish being. Although he did not specifically deny that man had
any sort of ability for rationalism, he however emphasized that man’s desires
overshadowed his rationality. The resulting effect was that, man always sought
to discover the most efficient means of satisfying his desires, even if it was
by hook or crook. So, man according to Hobbes is a competitor for riches,
honor, power, and command; and to achieve this, he is destined to become strifeful,
warlike, envious and anything which would aid him in attaining to his desires.
Ø John Locke
Like Hobbes, understanding Locke’s
conception of man would pave the way to comprehending his ideal on the state of
nature. For Locke, man is a rational being. Hence, all human beings (excluding
children and the mentally ill) have reasoning power and are equal. In other
words, man is a being that is ruled by his rationality; he surely has desires
but he does not allow these desires to overrule his rationality. So, man is a
being who critically considers every decision which he wants to embark on
before doing it.
THEIR HYPOTHESIS ON THE STATE OF NATURE
Ø Thomas Hobbes
Accordingly,
the pre-political era or state of nature, as presented by Hobbes was an era of
strife and hostility. It was a time of each against all, man against man, and
an insecure environment. Hobbes described the life of man during this era as,
solitary (lonely), poor, nasty, brutish (harsh) and short. Like Thrasymachus,
it was a time when justice was the interest of the strong, for might is right.
Good and bad, virtue and vice, right and wrong became subjective and
deterministic, according to the trend of the individual. This is a brief
picture of Hobbes state of nature.
Ø John Locke
The hypothesized state of nature as
presented by Locke was a peaceful era; a blissful haven state where man lived
in solitude and community, guided by reason. It was not a state where man lived
in perpetual fear of death and threat of life. Life was not strifeful in any
way for man applied his rationality to every single action and activity he got
involved in. But, according to Locke, the only thing which served as a
potential threat to life in the state of nature was the insecurity of property.
Locke explained that property in the state of nature was common, given the fact
that everyone had a right to draw a source of living from the natural provision
which life had to offer, as long as man was ready to exert some labor of his
body to extract what he wanted from nature. But, since there was no formal
legal organization within society, there was a potential threat to life and
property as man’s rationality could fail him at any point in time; his desires
could overtake him and make him want to take what does not belong to him.
THEIR POSTULATIONS ON THE ROLE OF NATURAL LAW IN SOCIETY
Ø Thomas Hobbes
The point at which natural law comes into
the picture, the point at which it becomes critical in Hobbes state of nature,
is its relevance in ‘’self preservation’’. As it were, the basic need of man in
the state of nature was that of self-preservation. The desire to live a sweet,
long and fulfilling life was so strong on every individual in the state of
nature. Indeed, it is a natural law that human life should be preserved, as
long as it can, for that is part of its essence. Human life really makes no
sense if it were so solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Thus, a dire need
for natural law to intervene, by instituting an environment whereby
self-preservation can be attained was necessary.
Ø John Locke
Furthermore, the point at which natural law
becomes crucial in the state of nature is in its relevance in the efficient
institution of legal structures to ensure the security of property. The only
defect of the state of nature was mainly based on the fact that it had no
organization, written law and fixed penalties to give effect to the natural
rules of right. Hence, in order for man to ensure that there was security of
property in the state, he had to abandon his havenly natural condition and by
contract surrender part of his liberty to a sovereign power that would ensure
that human personal entitlements were rightly protected, thus ensuring a more
secure life.
THEIR JUSTIFICATIONS OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
Ø Thomas Hobbes
In order to achieve this, Hobbes postulated
that man in the strifeful state of nature collectively and desperately had to
come into agreement to institute in place an ‘’absolute’’ government, which
will oversee the affairs of the state. This absolute power would become a ‘’leviathan’’
that possesses the sovereignty to effectively curb the excesses of man and tame
man as it were. Also this sovereign power had to be above the law to
efficiently enforce same. This was to ensure peace, order and progress for all
citizens. In other words, Hobbes used the doctrine of the social contract to
justify authoritarian government as well as absolutism. This follows, as the
idea of the state of nature was all imaginary.
Ø John Locke
In order for man in the state of
nature to secure a safe state where security of property was priority, they
decided to undertake a social contract. This contract entailed that the people
gave up a part of their autonomy to a power that was meant to use his
leadership office to institute structures in place whereby there could be
security of property which was the very element the previous state of nature
lacked. In other words, this power had an obligation to be responsible to the
people, as he was not above the law, although he was the one to institute it.
In any case whereby there was a breach of contract, the people had every right
to undertake a revolution to overthrow the tyrannous power.
(YOUR CRITICISMS AND CONCLUSION)
Both Hobbes and Locke Had ideas to make natural Law more ideal for one another showing that they had selfish motives for themselves. Both show that they have ideas for themselves. Locke’s ideals is for One person to benefit from things more than everyone else. “Indeed, it is a natural law that human life should be preserved, as long as it can, for that is part of its essence"(Blogspot.com).This states that Hobbes ideals is for one person to benefit, but for all life to be as protected as it can be. “Thus unlike Hobbes, Locke rejected absolute monarchy."(Esler,paragraph 8). This states that Hobbes, and Locke both have different ideals for natural law. In the social contract Hobbes believed that all of man should give up their freedom. Even if they both are very different they both have similarities because both of them are every selfish. In addition, both are similar because both refer “state of nature" as man exist without the government. They also both speak the risk of nature. Both refer men as being equal in this state. Even though both speak the dangers of the state of nature, Hobbes speaks theoretically while Locke sites examples where they exist.” The point at which natural law comes into the picture, the point at which it becomes critical in Hobbes state of nature, is its relevance in ‘’self-preservation’’. As it were, the basic need of man in the state of nature was that of self-preservation."(Blogsspot.com). This shows Hobbes main point while Locke is arguing more that formed governments protect their natural rights.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your comment, their are a few elements that I agree on and some that I have not complete idea about. To begin with, your first sentence says, "Both Hobbes and Locke Had ideas to make natural Law more ideal...." It is true that Hobbes and Locke wanted to make a society that is more ideal but not natural laws that are ideal. Natural Laws are the basis structure of "natures conduct". Your sentence makes it seem like natural law on the subject of state of nature can be two things or to laws, one from Locke and the other from Hobbes. Their can only be one natural law from one philosopher, either Hobbes or Locke, as their is one law of gravity from Isaac Newton and no one else. Your sentence should have been, "Both Hobbes and Locke Had ideas to discover a natural law...."
DeleteI agree with what you are saying because the way they both described men seemed to be describing certain people or themselves. It is kind of selfish because its also there opinions on what they want men to live by. They do have different ideas on the nature of men. Towards the end where the social contract is, they want similar things not only for men but to anyone. Its all about being in it together and being treated equal
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThomas Hobbes believed that all people were cruel and would fight and rob each other without any control. "To escape that 'brutish' life, said Hobbes, people entered into a social contract, an agreement by which they gave up their freedom for an organized society." (World History Textbook, page 55.) He also believed that the government should be powerful and an absolute monarch should be the ruler. John Locke, however thought completely the opposite. "For Locke, man is a rational being. Hence, all human beings (excluding children and the mentally ill) have reasoning power and are equal. In other words, man is a being that is ruled by his rationality; he surely has desires but he does not allow these desires to overrule his rationality." (Natural Law, a Historical Study) Because of this, he came up with Natural Rights. These are rights that all people are born with, including life, liberty, and property. He also thought that the government had limited power and that the government was accepted by all citizens.
ReplyDeleteThe reason The Enlightenment is also called the European Intellectual Movement is because it was one. People and philosophers from Europe shared ideas about religion, science, sociology, politics, and much more.
The Enlightenment was highly influenced by two notable philosopher known as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Locke and Hobbes’s main focus was on the "state of nature" in man. Although both wanted to seek the most efficient way to sustain a good state of nature, they had differences between ideas.
ReplyDeleteThomas Hobbes reasons that man is naturally cruel, greedy, and selfish. Meanwhile, Locke believes that "man is a rational being" (NATURAL LAW- A HISTORICAL STUDY - PHY 262,paragraph 4). During the Enlightenment Era in the eighteenth century, governments in Europe were mostly ruled by an absolute monarch and life was not well maintained. Due to this, Locke and Hobbes sought to spread their ideas to eventually develop a "natural law" within the structure of a government. Thomas Hobbes supported the idea that an absolute monarch having authority over the people, will make the perfect state of nature. According to, NATURAL LAW- A HISTORICAL STUDY - PHY 262: THEIR JUSTIFICATIONS OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, man and the ruler "...had to come into agreement to institute in place an ‘’absolute’’ government, which will oversee the affairs of the state."
Locke advocated for the natural rights of man; life, liberty, and property. In addition, Locke argued that if a government does not protect the life, liberty, and property of the people, then they had the right to overthrow that government (World History by Ellis and Esler: Chapter 2; Section 1,pg 55). Unfortunately, Locke’s idea of natural rights can only be protected by a social contract because most governments did not have a legislature that would accept it. Due to this, man had to agree to a social agreement.
Europe in the eighteenth century had established a phenomenon known as the Enlightenment(age of reason) era. It was also called the European intellectual movement. It is called the European intellectual movement because it was a spread of intellect or ideas across many parts of Europe. The ideas came from many philosophers known as philosophes (French for philosopher)(World History by Ellis and Esler: Chapter 2; Section 1,pg 56). Famous philosophes of the Enlightenment include Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu, and Rousseau. The Enlightenment had a profound impact in future events including the most notable, the writing of the Constitution of United States of America 1789.
ReplyDeleteBoth Hobbes and Locke were political philosophers. They presented a hypothetical account of a pre-political era. Hobbes explains what he believes is right in the nature of men. He explains how men are egoistic and selfish human beings. That they only vare about satisfying their desires. He explains how they only want to be rich, honorable, have power, and command which meant they had to be strifeful and warlike. This is way different to what Locke had said. in the nature of men, Locke said men are rational human beings. They want equal control,power, and reasoning. He does agree that men do have desires, but men know how to not let that overcome their rationality. In the state pf nature, Hobbes explains how the life of men really is. He talks about how men live a lonely, poor, nasty, has,a and short life. Locke has a different perspective though. Locke talks about how men live a peaceful,guided by reason, solitude and community life. In the postulations on the role of nature law in society, Hobbes explains that men in reality want a self preserved, see, long, and fulfilling life. This is kind of relatable to what Locke has said. Locke said men want security of property, personal entitlements, want to be rightly protected and have a secure life. On what they both agree on is that men want peace and order and progress for all citizens. They want security and responsibility. This was all in the social contract.
ReplyDelete