Hobbes and Locke: How Do They Compare?

Introduction 

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) are some of the most influential political philosophers of their time. They were great thinkers and legendary for their immense contribution to the field of politics. It is important to realize that each of the philosophers had a unique point of view regarding the nature of man, man’s relationship with the government, as well as man’s relationship with the society. The difference between their views lies in their different views on the nature of man. Despite this, their writings have had a significant influence on the development of modern political thought. While the two political philosophers focus on the dangers inherent in the state of nature, Hobbes is generally pessimistic while Locke highlights the potential benefits. 

Hobbes Account 

Hobbes’ works were based on philosophical fundamentals that continue to influence modern politics. Hobbes believes that individuals in the society are basically egotistical. As such, any man in the society is capable of killing the other, particularly under the right circumstances, and that no individual is exempt from such a rule. Essentially, humans are egotistical because they will do anything they can in order to ensure their physical safety and survival, particularly in circumstances where a push translates into shove. When people pursue their own survival in the society characterized by intense competition, their moral become circumvented. For instance, individuals fighting for limited resources have the capability to kill in order to increase their chances for survival. Additionally, each individual has his own idea of right and wrong. Thus, it is very difficult to establish whether any individual’s version of right and wrong is universally right or wrong. This is because every person will strive to create his own rationalization to kill another for survival purposes. Based on the capability of an individual to kill another person, the government is needed to maintain order and prevent human conflict. 

The extremity of the state of nature from Hobbes’ perspective is described as “the warre of every man against every man”. As such, the life of man is generally nasty brutish and short according to Hobbes. Hobbes’ position is conveyed in such a systematic manner that makes him the father of political science. Hobbes’ scientific approach to the explanation of human conflict was informed by Galileo’s theory of the conservation of motion ( Spragens Jr, 2015) . According to Hobbes, motion can be viewed as something that produces delight or displeasure within individuals. As such, people will desire the delight inducing motions as opposed to contemptible ones. 

Another important aspect of Hobbes philosophy is that he viewed people as roughly equal. According to him, the differences that may exist among men in terms of physical strength and smartness cannot produce any sort of natural hierarchy. Although the stronger man may dominate the weaker, the weaker one may join up with others in confederacy or take up arms. This consequently negates the stronger man’s apparent advantage in the society. With regards to intellectual equality in the society, Hobbes argued that any given individual will always consider himself to be wiser than most others. Thus, the people’s search for felicity, as well as the relative equality in terms of capabilities results in significant competition for limited resources and survival (Hobbes, 2016). Every individual seeks to fulfill his desires as his neighbors endeavor to fulfill theirs too. People will always confront themselves, particularly in a situation where they have the same tangible desires whose objects are constantly in scarcity. Such a confrontation will definitely result in human conflict. 

The conflicts associated with man’s pursuit for felicity, coupled with an aversion of the contemptible are almost limitless. This is because there will always be the consideration of real and potential enemies. For instance, man A may desire a certain piece of fertile land and decide to take it peacefully. However, the knowledge that all else is equal could prompt him to suspect that person B or C may have a desire to take the land. This could happen even if person B and C have not made no such expression suggesting that they desire to take the land. In such a case, man A may make a pre-emptive strike to eliminate any person who is merely a potential enemy. The status of person B or C will not matter because man A is suspecting of potentially coming between him and the land. Even if man B is rich, he may have the desire to further such an attribute. Worse still, if man C is poor, he may have the desire to take the land in order to improve his livelihood. This implies that Hobbes state of nature is characterized by man’s desire to get as much of the scarce resources as possible, ensuring one’s security is perhaps the only right that people have. Thus, the drive for self preservation is actually the only right independent of government. This is because Hobbes generally believed that the state of nature is a state of chaos and violence. 

According to Hobbes the process involved in creating a government should be the one in which people the people involved hold the same values so as to live in harmony. When people hold the same values, they will be able to follow the confines that the laws and government places on the individuals in the society (Gray, 2014). As such, people have to overcome the baseness of their own nature, as well as rationally decide to live together peacefully. In this case, the people have to concede their rights to everything and allow the government of the day to maintain its right to everything with the intention to promote harmony in the society. Thus, believes that absolute centralized power is the only effective way to maintain peace in the society. 

Locke’s Account 

Generally, Locke’s perspective of the state of nature is optimistic. He paints a picture of a far more pleasant place to be compared to Hobbes’ pessimistic view. Locke gives the laws of nature, asserting that mankind is to be preserved as much as possible. According to him, man is God’s property and that they should not harm each other. As such, humans have the primary duty to obey such a sacred law. Locke further argues that an enforcer is not required to have the law followed by humans. He believes that all men are equal and that they have the authority to ensure that the law of nature is effectively enforced. As such, Locke starts from the premise of equality and finally fits within a positive framework regarding the state of nature. 

While applying the laws of nature, man should do so through reparation and restraint. Locke asserted that reason would allow for the expression of the collective rationality for any individual. According to him, any individual that breaks the laws of nature makes himself an enemy to all mankind and by extension to oneself. Basing on such a collective rationality, any man has the right to punish the offender. This makes man the executioner of the laws of nature. For instance, an individual who has suffered damage to his property and seeks reparation can be joined with other men who recognize that a transgression has been committed. Together, the individuals may ultimately enforce reparations that are proportional to the transgression visited upon one of their own. However, Locke acknowledged the fact that problems to do with the impartiality and interpretation of the law would arise regarding the application of the appropriate punishment. 

Despite such a problem, Locke still portrays nature positively. He argues that the state of nature could be one that harbors some few rogues and occasionally fail to punish justly, but men are primarily rational rather than egotistical ( Tuckness , 2005). According to Locke, the rationality of man tells him to take no more than he actually needs, as going beyond self-sufficiency is not required. However, Locke identifies on significant problem with regards to resources, He argues that the invention of currency resulted in a lot of problems in terms of resource sharing. According to him, money allows for hoarding. As such, people will hoard to meet their future needs instead of using what they actually need at a given point in time. However, Locked does not actually view this problem as the beginning of the state of war. Instead, he viewed the challenge as the multiplication of the inconveniences in the state of nature. 

However, such an argument is logically invalid, particularly when considering the fact that man is primarily rational. This is because men, a species that is credited for expressing collective rationality, would not invent currency because it allows for hoarding. Hoarding contradicts the law of nature by significantly threatening the preservation of mankind. This is because appropriation and hoarding of currency serves to produce a have and a have not population. In essence, to have not is actually the means to destruction of an individual’s self preservation. As such, the invention of the currency portrays man as an irrational species. 

Similarities between Hobbes and Locke 

Both Hobbes and Locke speak of the danger presented by the state of nature. They both agree that men are equal in the state of nature. For instance, Hobbes states that nature has made men to be equal in the faculties of mind and body (Macpherson, 2016). As such, the difference between them is generally insignificant. On the same thread, Locke describes the state of nature as one that is of perfect equality. According to Locke, neither superiority nor jurisdiction of one over the other exists in the state of nature. Despite the equality, both Hobbes and Locke warn of the danger surrounding the state of nature. According to Hobbes, a man is in a constant state of war as long as he is in a state of nature. He argues that if any two men cannot enjoy doing the same thing, they automatically become enemies and strive destroy one another. Locke too asserts that everyone may execute decisions that lead to a state of war without the law of nature. As such, both Hobbes and Locke acknowledge the dangers inherent in a state of nature which could result in a state of war. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, Hobbes’ state of nature is in a constant state of nature while Locke’s has potential benefits. Their understanding of man is generally based on either desire or rationality. While Hobbes advocates for the establishment of a sovereign power, Locke advocates for a more tolerant and limited form of authority. According to Hobbes, human conflict is caused by the lack of an absolute centralized power. On the other hand, Locke believes that human conflict can come as a result of a failure to obey the laws of nature. However, there are similarities between the two. Both agree that there are dangers associated with the state of nature. It is important to realize that modern politics are significantly influenced by the political philosophies of Hobbes ad Locke. Their contribution to the field of politics is manifested in the existence of both authoritarian governments, after Hobbes, and liberal governments, after Locke. 

References 

Gray, J. (2014). Post-liberalism: Studies in political thought . Routledge.

Hobbes, T. (2016). Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan (Longman Library of Primary Sources in Philosophy) . Routledge.

Macpherson, C. B. (2010). The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke.

Tuckness, A. (2005). Locke's political philosophy.

Spragens Jr, T. A. (2015). The politics of motion: The world of Thomas Hobbes . University Press of Kentucky.