Hobbes and Locke

Hobbes and Locke

After and During the English revolution, various Western philosophers expressed different views as per their philosophical outlook and life experiences. Some of the most outstanding thinkers include John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. They had opposing views, although on governance matters, the two had striking similarities. Either way, historical experiences influenced their arguments because they shaped Hobbes’ and Locke’s outlook. In addition, the duo represented an increasingly modernized European population that despised absolute Kingship. Both Locke and Hobbes proposed a conception of an external power to solve the issues arising from the state of nature’s inconveniences. A third power is also necessary to arrests insecurity in case there is a war. However, the creation of government and the transition out of natural state (including the logic behind this idea) exposes sharp contrasts between the two philosophers.

Hobbes is convinced that the reasons for creating a social contract are natural laws such as peace, contractual rights, and execution of agreements. Therefore, humans have to create an external power to enforce natural laws. According to him, covenants are just words unless they are with swords (Flathman 104). The new governance system has to be so powerful that people would rather perform their covenants than break the law. In a sense, the mere existence of a government should instil fear while serving the citizens at the same time. Further, the forms of punishment should be costlier than the benefits of breaking the regulations. Creation of a power large enough to protect people from themselves and to guarantee security calls for ceding the right of natural equality and perfect freedom.

On the other hand, Locke argues that since men are free and equal beings in nature, a political power introduced without their consent cannot strip them of their rights and free will (Locke 35). However, he proposes that people can strike a deal with fellow humans to circumvent the natural inconveniences peacefully coexist with each other. Still, it implies that each person becomes his own judge in their case. He differs with Hobbes on the role of property in civil governance. For instance, Locke claims that property is hardly assured in the state of nature. Hence, a society cannot exist without creating a power for preserving its property. According to Locke, a political society allows citizens to quit the natural power and give it up to into the people’s hands.  In this case, an individual cannot judge the law privately because the community monitors personal struggles for the property through indifferent rules and law enforcement agents endorsed by the society. Hobbes’ main focus is security whereas Locke highlights property preservation and the introduction of a common judge.

There is a lack of clarity regarding Hobbes's position on liberalism or absolutism. What is certain is that Locke is against all forms of political absolutism including Kingship. He says that an absolute form of governance is incompatible with a civilized society since a King is a ‘state of nature’ to his subjects. It is attainable through the creation of an authority where people must obey and appeal. A king in power responds to none thus is part of nature. In a worst case scenario, a subject becomes a non-rational being as the King denies liberty to defend or judge their rights. In a state of nature, it is still possible for a person to enforce natural laws. It cannot happen under a monarch.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes employ a logical mechanism of the natural state to expound on the importance of a civil government. However, their explanations vary. In Locke’s case, the law of nature rules a state but must be represented by reason. On the other hand, Hobbes argues that the state of nature is at war with itself (Gauthier 25). Therefore, the people can only establish the natural law after a lengthy process of consultation and reasoning. In the end, the conflicting parties resolve their differences through brokering peace deals.

According to Hobbes, a contract exists between the people and their leader. However, once he eventually becomes a king, his power is absolute and people cannot overthrow him. Contrastingly, John Locke has a modernist view that a government can only exist on the condition that people can overthrow it if it fails to represent the people (Locke 6b). I agree with Locke’s philosophical view. In a democratic system of governance, people have a freedom to choose leaders whose policies meet their needs. In Locke’s view of government, people have the power to demand changes in the style of leadership to serve the evolving demands. Therefore, there is an observable progress since all the people are equal and have voting rights. Over time, chronic challenges crippling monarchs (for instance wide gap between the rich and the poor) dissipate. It was the case with former empires such as UK, Japan, France, and Spain prior to the adoption of the democratic governance system.

Hobbes’s argument is ill-informed and surpassed by time. In a modern world, it is hard to envision a system where a king has an absolute power. An absolute leader may run out of ideas to stimulate economic improvement and to improve the livelihoods of the lower class. Mostly, such leaders are inspired by the need to retain the subject’s loyalty. Oppression is rampant and people live in fear of harsh punishments. Consequently, the gap between the poor and rich widens.

Works Cited

Flathman, Richard E. Thomas Hobbes: Skepticism, Individuality, and Chastened Politics. Vol. 2. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012: 104-106. Print.

Gauthier, David P. The Logic of Leviathan: The Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes. London: Oxford University Press, 2012: 1-72. Print.

Locke, John, and Peter Laslett. Locke: Two Treatises of Government Student Edition. London: Cambridge University Press, 2013: 1-53a. Print.

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration. London: Oxford University Press, 2016: 1-7b. Print.