Comparison Of Hobbes’ And Locke’S Divergent Visions Of Human Nature

English philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) have both made large contributions to develop the political thoughts of society. Before we dive into each of their ideas, we need to be aware of the contexts from which they arose. Their vastly different individual circumstances have helped define striking distinctions in personal outlook. As such, this essay will first explore the historical context in which the different philosophers’ works were constructed and move on to consider the differences in the social contractual theory that emerged from their distinct perspectives on the state of nature. It will also attempt to reconcile their differences and discuss how they contribute to political theory.

Hobbes’ famous work, Leviathan appeared during one of the most turbulent periods of early modern British political history (Gingell,1999). In 1649, a civil war had broken out over who would rule England: Parliament or King Charles I. The war ended with the beheading of King Charles and shortly after his death, Hobbes had written the Leviathan, a defence of the absolute power of kings. The strife in the civil war can be said to have led Hobbes to be broadly supportive of hereditary monarchy (ibid. ) as parallels can be drawn from him likening the Leviathan to a government, a powerful state created to impose order. These extended periods of tumult fashioned a pessimistic outlook on human nature and instilled in Hobbes a strong conviction for an absolute monarchy, believing that ultimately the only capable form of social governance was a sovereign with unrestricted ruling power (Kostakopoulou, 2002).

As for Locke, he published his Two Treatises of Government anonymously in 1690. Two years earlier, the unpopular King James II had been ousted in favour of King William III and his wife Queen Mary in the Glorious Revolution, with the help of a group of wealthy noblemen known as the Whigs. Locke had strong associations with the Whigs and sought to justify the ascension of King William. The Treatises were written with a specific aim - to defend the Glorious Revolution. Locke also sought to refute the pro-Absolutist theories of Sir Robert Filmer, which he and his Whig associates felt were getting far too popular. As such, considering the context, we can see why Locke took a more critical stance against the government and instead focuses on the free reign of people to reform the legislation.

Aware of the moulding contexts from which Hobbes and Locke arose, we may then delve into the essence of their theory and critically analyse their common grounds and areas where they diverge. For a start, Hobbes and Locke are similar in that both refer to “a state of nature” in which Man exists without a government, and both refer to them as being equal in this state. Hobbes states that “nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of mind and body… the difference between man and man is not so considerable” (Wootton, p158). Similarly, Locke describes the nature of nature as a “state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another” (Wootton, p288). Both acknowledge that prior to any form of government, every individual is on his own and it is to everyone to protect his or her property and to secure the personal preservation.

Another common thread is that both also agree on the social contract as instrumental and are strong proponents of the social contract theory. For Hobbes, the way out of the “state of nature” is a “social contract,” to be agreed upon by the people to be governed by the government. According to Locke, people voluntarily give government some of their power through a “social contract” in order to protect their “natural rights” of life, liberty, and property. Both agree on this point and agree that there is a need to create socio-political processes that eventually create an equilibrium between the powerful and the less powerful. People need an authority to obey and must renounce some or all of their rights which they had in the state of nature. As a result, an individual or a group of individuals who will have the power to enforce the social contract.

Although both did expound on the dangers of a state of nature, Hobbes embodied a more negative conception of human nature, whereas Locke speaks of the potential benefits that can arise. Hobbes view is grounded in his cynical understanding of human behaviour in the absence of an overarching power. This is evident in “From man’s desire for “the same thing[s], which nevertheless they [all] cannot enjoy” (Leviathan, XIII, 3) follows competition, it degenerates quickly into a “war of every man against every man” (XIII, 12). For Hobbes, he argues that we have a right to deny another’s rights, if that is what is necessary to preserve our own rights – a point of view that could justify absolutism. At its root, Hobbes’ position on rights in the state of nature arises from his belief that we have no inherent moral compass, or at least his scepticism that any tendency towards altruism is of much value in the face of the powerful forces of self-preservation (Modern Conceptions of Freedom, 2013). Contrastingly, Locke defines the state of nature differently from Hobbes. To Locke, the state of nature is a state of liberty but not a state of ‘licence’, because it still falls under a law, viz. the Law of Nature (Michael Lacewing). It is not a bellum omnium contra omnes (without justice, property and law), but a state of peace in which individuals enjoy perfect freedom and equality under the protection of the law of nature (Lazarski, 2013)

Besides the varying levels of civility in their perception of the state of nature, Hobbes and Locke also have different attitudes towards legislature. Hobbes was more agreeable to the sovereign, believing that it always acts in a way that that was in accordance with the public good. As for Locke, he held a more sceptical stance; the sovereign is merely another man, who is subject to the same faults as all other men. This meant that the sovereign cannot always enjoy absolute or arbitrary authority and use his prerogative. Thus, the legitimacy of government depends upon the people’s consent. It is Locke’s distinction between these two states, as well as his recognition of the fallibility of the sovereign, which permits him to place the ultimate power in the hands of the people (Winfred, 2011). It is this important difference between these two conceptions which allows the people to retain a right to revolt. Therefore, although both Hobbes and Locke see government as a necessity, the amount of government and the means and justifications for ruling are very much different.

One main running theme is the idea of consent. Consent enables one to make binding agreements, i. e. , contracts. Both classic social contract theories assume the individual parties to have normative power over themselves (D'Agostino 2017). Hobbes writes that “the Right of all Sovereigns, is derived originally from the consent of every one of those that are to be governed” (Hobbes, 1909; p. 448). For Locke, what constitutes civil society is the “consent of free men” (Locke, 1980; p. 53). The origin and the justification of the state’s legitimate power over its citizens, people uprisings in cases of government malfunctioning, as well as the property’s role in the social development are all influenced by the earlier social contract theories of Hobbes and Locke (Bёrdufi and Dushi, 2015).

Although both theories attempt to addresses the source of a sovereign’s legitimacy (and while technically unassailable), Hobbes’ account leans towards less appealing. His account of human behaviour in the state of war is incompatible with altruism and unselfishness, examples of which abound both in modern and historical society (Modern Conceptions of Freedom, 2013). On the contrary, Hobbes’ thought which is situated within an ethical framework and based on the concept that fundamental rights are never relinquished, is more convincing and contributes better to the larger picture of political theory. In essence, Hobbes’ and Locke’s divergent accounts of rights reflect starkly contrasting visions of human nature what it implies for society. Whereas Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan represents the absolute authoritarian monarch, Locke integrates the common plebes into his liberalist theory of a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. However, at the same time, it also must be recognised that Hobbes and Locke both shared a grounding in the classics that was similarly influential in forming their views on political philosophy and human behaviour (Rawls, 2009).