Two Men, Two Philosophies, One Era
Essay Preview: Two Men, Two Philosophies, One Era
Report this essay
Two Men, Two Philosophies, One Era
Locke and Hobbes are two famous political philosophers who are most often perceived as being diametrically opposed in their conceptions of human nature and natural law. In contrast, it can also be claimed that the two different perspectives of Hobbes and Locke are not that far removed and are actually closer, upon further reflection we will compare and contrast the state of nature and its natural conditions. We will also take a closer look into to the differences with the nature of men, natural liberty, the equality of notion, and the construction of their social contracts.
Both philosophers believe that men are born into the state of nature, are free, and they are free for the same fundamental reason. Locke states, “the equality I there spoke of as proper to the business in hand, being that equal right that every man hath to his natural freedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man”(Locke, 31). Locke thought that everyone is born equal into the state of nature and by virtue of being bound to the same set of obligations and law that in this sense all men are equal, introducing the concept of the Tabula Rasa where we are all born with a clean and clear state. Hobbes also believed in equality in his conception of the state of nature by virtue of the fact that even the feeblest man can be instrumental in the execution of the strongest man. Hobbes explains this when he says, “For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself”(Hobbes, 183). From this point forward it is clear that their conceptions of the state of nature are very different.
Locke seemed to think man is equal in the state of nature because one is born into a society of people who use their rational capacities and can recognize these natural laws as binding. Locke makes a statement in relation to this property when he states, “men living together according to reason, without a common superior on Earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature”(Locke, 15). Hobbes only seems to think one is equal by virtue of the fact that everyone has the capability to kill another. Hence, this comes to suggest that their conception of natural law is different because while both acknowledge its existence, there seems to be a difference when it is present and in what capacity it is present. In this case it is useful to outline the reasons why for each philosophers civil society is created and together with their opposing view of human nature is where one can draw a major distinction in their conceptions of natural law.
Locke thinks that human nature is such that men can fulfill their obligations to one another and maintain some form of peace. Locke seems to diverge from this positive perspective of human nature in chapter nine of his treatise when he then says men in the state of nature are, “constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equality and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure”(Locke, 65). However, this perspective can be reconciled in the sense that Locke concedes that natural law will eventually be broken and that the only way to make sure private property and liberty are secured is to form civil society. In this sense natural law, that which promotes the fulfillment of promises and good will for others can be maintained and secured.
In contrast, Hobbes is quite different and does not agree with the idea of natural law existing in the truest sense that it is a law. Hobbes conceives that the human beings, minds and rationales are as one that is in constant motion. The decisions that men make in a state of war are a direct result of their appetitive nature; their bodily wants:
“The cause of sense is the external body, or object, which presseth the organ proper to each sense, either immediately, as in the taste and touch; or mediately, as in seeing, hearing, and smelling: which pressure, by the mediation of nerves and other strings and membranes of the body, continued inwards to the brain and heart, causeth there a resistance, or counter-pressure, or endeavour of the heart to deliver itself: which endeavour, because outward, seemeth to be some matter without.” (Hobbes, 85)
They commit to their decisions because all things are for all men due to the fact that there is no law enforcement by a central authority. Like Locke, Hobbes believes that the creation of civil society is due to the fact that there is a need to protect ones livelihood with regards to liberty and property because there would be those that would threaten it. The differentiation is due to the fact that in Hobbes grim view of human nature he believes that no law should exist if it cannot be enforced. For Locke there is an inherent sense of obligation to one another and in this sense natural law is a real and dynamic force in the state of nature.
This distinction also takes into account reasons for why Lockes state of nature includes the idea of private property whereas for Hobbes it cannot. Due to the fact that natural law exists, this is a unwritten acceptance of natural law and therefore there are obligations such as that not to steal or take property from another. This is very real for Locke and by virtue of this binding rule of human conduct, one can have private property. However, Hobbes would fiercely object and think it absurd for evil and vile men who seek and lust for power to follow any unwritten guideline that cannot be enforced in a state of war. Hobbes believed that property can be possessed but a right cannot be said to exist because it would require others to recognize this right. This is absent in the state of war, and it is because of a lack of security of self and property and peace that civil society must be formed. Therefore, conferring absolute sovereignty to one person or political body so that natural law can have force and effect.
Building upon the fact that Hobbes and Locke have different conceptions of human nature, which subsequently is the basis by which each philosopher sees what role natural law can possibly have in their states of nature. Taking all of this into account it is then somewhat more tangible to identify the central reasons why Hobbes and Locke form different versions of the state. To reiterate briefly, natural law can only be in effect in civil society for Hobbes because in civil society there is an authority to enforce it, whereas for Locke civil society is created to make sure the obligations of natural law do not become routinely violated.