Locke And Hobbes Describe Life In The State Of Nature

Locke And Hobbes Both Describe Life In The State Of Nature

Question : Locke and Hobbes both describe life in the “State of Nature,” a condition in which human beings live without government, political authority, or civil law. What are some important similarities and differences between their characterizations of the “State of Nature”? Which author, in your opinion, characterizes the State of Nature more plausibly (be sure to back this opinion up with argument and evidence)? They each describe civil society as an improvement over the State of Nature. Which author makes a stronger and more compelling case for this claim?

Paper For Above instruction

The philosophies of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes present contrasting images of the state of nature, each with profound implications for understanding the origins of civil society and government. Both philosophers explore this hypothetical scenario—life without formal political structures—yet their descriptions diverge significantly in tone, emphasis, and philosophical foundations. Analyzing their characterizations reveals both critical similarities and notable differences, and assessing which description is more plausible requires examining their underlying assumptions about human nature and social cooperation. Furthermore, evaluating whose argument for civil society as an improvement holds more persuasive force underscores the relevance of their broader political philosophies.

Hobbes and Locke both conceptualize the state of nature as a pre-political condition devoid of societal structure, but their portrayals differ markedly in terms of human behavior, perceived dangers, and the moral landscape. Hobbes famously depicts the state of nature as a “war of all against all” (Hobbes, 1651), where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 1651). This characterization emphasizes the instinctual self-interest, fear, and relentless conflict that arise when humans are free from authority. For Hobbes, the natural condition is inherently violent because humans are driven by passions and a perpetual desire for self-preservation, leading to a state fraught with insecurity and chaos.

In contrast, Locke offers a more optimistic view of the state of nature, portraying it as a state of relative peace, equality, and freedom. Locke (1689) sees humans as rational and capable of cooperating with one another, endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Although conflicts can arise over property or schema, these disputes are generally resolvable without constant violence, and individuals are guided by a natural law that teaches them to respect each other's rights. Unlike Hobbes’s state, Locke’s natural condition is not necessarily a state of endless conflict but a state of potential for social harmony, which can be disturbed by violations of natural rights.

The core similarity between their views lies in both acknowledging the absence of formal governmental authority and the presence of certain natural attributes among humans. Both agree that the state of nature is a theoretical baseline for understanding the inception of society, with each seeing the transition to civil society as a way to address deficiencies—Hobbes by emphasizing security and order, Locke through safeguarding natural rights. However, their fundamental differences revolve around human nature; Hobbes sees humans as driven primarily by self-interest and fear, leading to chaos without strong authority, whereas Locke regards humans as rational agents capable of reasoned cooperation, which diminishes the necessity for authoritarian control unless natural rights are violated.

Assessing which depiction is more plausible involves weighing these assumptions. Hobbes’s bleak portrayal, while extreme, may be justified as a cautionary depiction of unregulated human nature, especially given the historical context of civil unrest and endless conflicts. However, it risks overly pessimistic generalization, as humans do demonstrate altruism and cooperative behavior. Locke’s more balanced view aligns with empirical evidence suggesting that natural human tendencies include both self-interest and moral cooperation—traits observable in community life and social contract traditions. Therefore, Locke’s characterization may be more plausible because it better accounts for the complexities of human social behavior and the potential for constructive civil relations.

Regarding the claim that civil society is an improvement over the state of nature, both philosophers advocate for governance, but their reasons differ. Hobbes argues that without a sovereign to impose order, life remains perilous, and chaos prevails. Civil society, through the establishment of an absolute sovereign, ensures peace and security, removing the constant threat of personal violence (Hobbes, 1651). His justification for authority is rooted in the need to escape the chaos inherent in the natural condition, even at the cost of individual freedoms. In contrast, Locke’s view is that civil society arises from a voluntary agreement—forming a government that protects natural rights (Locke, 1689). For Locke, civil society is more justifiable because it is based on mutual consent, and government power is limited and accountable to the governed.

While Hobbes emphasizes security and order as the primary benefits of civil society, Locke underscores the importance of protecting individual rights and maintaining a government that exists with the consent of the governed. The strength of Locke’s case lies in its appeal to natural law and individual liberty, aligning more closely with modern democratic principles. Conversely, Hobbes’s justification, though effective in compelling order, risks justifying authoritarian or even despotic rule to ensure stability. Consequently, Locke’s argument for civil society as a protector of natural rights and a facilitator of moral cooperation is more compelling in promoting democratic and individualistic values.

In conclusion, both Locke and Hobbes provide valuable insights into the nature of humanity and the justification for civil authority. Hobbes offers a more pessimistic, security-focused portrayal of the state of nature, emphasizing the necessity of an overpowering sovereign. Locke’s depiction, rooted in rationality and natural rights, is more optimistic and arguably more plausible given human capacities for cooperation. Their differing visions for civil society reflect contrasting priorities—security versus liberty—yet both recognize the importance of establishing a political order. Nonetheless, Locke’s arguments for civil society as an improvement are more compelling in their respect for individual rights and democratic principles, making his model more relevant to contemporary political thought and practice.

References

  • Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan.
  • Locke, J. (1689). Two Treatises of Government.
  • Gray, J. (1995). Hobbes: Leviathan. Cambridge University Press.
  • Klosko, G. (2005). The Development of Political Theory. Oxford University Press.
  • Boucher, D., & Kelly, P. (2017). Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present. Oxford University Press.
  • Oakeshott, M. (1962). The Politics of Faith and the Politics of Scepticism. Cambridge University Press.
  • Hart, H. L. A. (2012). Are There Any Natural Rights? in The Philosophical Foundations of Rights, edited by R. Alexy & K. E. Lübbe, Cambridge University Press.
  • Brock, R. (2014). Hobbes and the Political Philosophy of the English Revolution. Cambridge University Press.
  • Liu, J. (2020). Natural Rights and the Foundations of Liberal Democracy. Oxford University Press.
  • Powell, A. (2012). The Political Philosophy of John Locke. Routledge.

Related Assignments