Compare The Political Views Of Thomas Hobbes And John Locke

Compare the political views of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke as it relates to the state of nature and the social contract

Compare the political views of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke as it relates to the state of nature and the social contract.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke remain foundational to Western political thought, particularly regarding their contrasting views on the state of nature and the social contract. Hobbes, in his seminal work "Leviathan," depicts a bleak view of the human condition without political order, advocating for a powerful sovereign to maintain peace. Locke, in "Two Treatises of Government," presents a more optimistic view of human nature and emphasizes natural rights and government by consent. This essay explores their biographies, compares their perspectives, and discusses how their views influence modern political thought.

Biographies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was an English philosopher, mathematician, and scientist, best known for his work on political philosophy. Living through turbulent times, including the English Civil War, Hobbes's experiences colored his views on human nature and the necessity of a strong sovereign authority. His most influential work, "Leviathan" (1651), articulates a vision in which individuals cede their rights to an absolute authority to prevent chaos and violence. Hobbes believed that in the state of nature, humans are driven by self-interest and are in constant conflict, necessitating an overarching authority to impose order.

John Locke (1632–1704) was also an English philosopher who lived during a period of political upheaval, including the Glorious Revolution. Locke’s philosophies underpin ideas of liberalism and constitutional government. His "Two Treatises of Government" (1689) advocate for government as a protector of natural rights—life, liberty, and property—based on the consent of the governed. Locke viewed the state of nature as generally peaceful but individuals' natural rights could be violated, thus requiring a limited government to safeguard these rights, with the power to be revoked if the government becomes oppressive.

Comparison of Views on the State of Nature and the Social Contract

Hobbes and Locke diverge significantly in their portrayal of the state of nature. Hobbes describes it as a state of perpetual war, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Hobbes, 1651), where humans are driven by competition, diffidence, and glory, leading to chaos without a central authority. To escape this, individuals agree to a social contract, surrendering their rights to an omnipotent sovereign who maintains security and order. Hobbes's social contract involves absolute obedience, as the sovereign’s power is final and indivisible. This model emphasizes security and stability over individual freedoms.

In contrast, Locke views the state of nature more benign but imperfect, characterized by the natural rights of individuals. People in Locke’s state of nature are capable of reason and cooperation but lack impartial justice and an authority to resolve conflicts fairly. Locke’s social contract entails individuals consenting to form a government that protects their natural rights. Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed this government should be limited, with the authority to be withdrawn if it violates the citizens' rights. Locke's social contract underscores the importance of individual liberty and the rule of law.

Implications and Influence on Modern Politics

Hobbes’s emphasis on a powerful sovereign has influenced authoritarian regimes, emphasizing order and security at the expense of individual freedoms. Conversely, Locke's ideas underpin liberal democracy, advocating for constitutional government, separation of powers, and protection of natural rights. Modern concepts such as human rights, constitutional rule, and the social contract theory draw heavily on Locke’s principles, shaping contemporary democratic institutions. Both philosophers highlight the importance of social agreements in forming political order, but their contrasting visions continue to influence debates on authority, liberty, and individual rights.

Conclusion

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke offer contrasting yet profoundly influential views on the nature of human beings and the foundations of political authority. Hobbes’s pessimistic view sees the necessity of absolute sovereignty to prevent chaos, while Locke’s more optimistic outlook advocates for limited government based on natural rights and consent. Understanding their differences enriches the comprehension of modern political systems and ongoing debates about authority and liberty. Their theories remain vital in shaping our understanding of government, rights, and societal order.

References

• Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Reprint, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
• Locke, J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government. Edited by Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
• Boucher, D. (1988). The Limits of Hobbesian Liberalism. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Laslett, P. (ed.). (1988). Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Skinner, Q. (2005). Hobbes and the Politics of Fear. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Benhabib, S. (2004). The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gauthier, D. (1969). Moral Progress. Harvard University Press.
• Tuck, R. (1982). Hobbes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Brennan, G., & Jaworski, P. (2014). The Political Philosophy of John Locke. Routledge.
• Cranston, M. (1991). John Locke: A Biography. London: Routledge.