Political Environment
REDZ18
ComparisonofHobbesandLockesStateofNatureandSocialContracttheory.edited.docx7
Comparison of Hobbes and Locke’s State of Nature and Social Contract theory
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Professor’s Name
Course Name and Code
Date
Comparison of Hobbes and Locke’s State of Nature and Social Contract theory
Social theory is a theory that holds that for people to live in a society they have to abide by a certain contract. This theory is very old and can be traced back to Plato. Plato in his book the rhetoric is responsible for the first appearances of social contract theory. Social Contract has at least five elements. These elements are the parties, agreement, the object of the agreement, and what the agreement is supposed to show. The social contract theory aims to show that people in society have a reason to agree to social conventions. It also serves to show that rules whether they be social, political, or moral can be rationally justified. This rationality is dependent on a rational agreement. Scholars only differ on the individual reasons for having the social contract but the tenets of the theory remain very much the same. Some choose to follow Hobbes's view which sees individual reasons as highly subjective. There are two key proponents of the social contract theory, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
John Locke was born on August 29, 1629, in Wrington Somerset England. Locke's father was a Lawyer. When Locke was 10 years old there was an English war. The war was between Charles I and parliamentarians. Locke's father at the time was the captain of the cavalry of parliamentarians. It is believed that Locke's observation of this war deepened his conviction that the monarch did not hold a divine rule. After the war, Locke was enrolled in Westminster school and later Oxford. His upbringing as a puritan coloured Locke's thinking and way of writing. He wrote Two Tracts of government in 1660, and later as a supervisor of the undergraduates, he wrote Laws of Nature. Which articulated his philosophical views very well and these views remained almost unchanged throughout his career. Locke's political views were very much guided by his religious commitment. He always believed in the existence of a creating God and his purpose for humanity. Locke was also concerned about subjects such as education. He later died in 1704 in High laver, Essex. (Woolhouse, R. 2007).
Thomas Hobbes was born on April 5th, 1555. Hobbes was a son of a parish priest who later abandoned his children to the care of his brother. Hobbes attended school at Westport and later at the age of 15 he attended Magdalen Hall at the University of Oxford. At Oxford, he took a degree in arts, and in his spare time, he had an interest in maps. Hobbes was exposed to practical politics before he interacted with theoretical politics. Hobbes's first work was The Law, Natural and Politic which was published in 1640. Hobbes, who has studied languages and arts developed an interest in science and mathematics. He is even accredited for developing optics and ballistics. Hobbes believed that is not naturally suited for politics because they are inherently selfish. This self-interest will eventually prompt them to go to war with other people. Neither can they appeal to appeal to Natural common standards. Hobbes was highly esteemed for his philosophical views to his death in 1679. (Malcolm, N. 1996).
Hobbes and Locke differed on the state of nature of man. Hobbes believed and wrote that the nature of man is inherently selfish and is not therefore driven towards society. This nature is constantly in motion to reduce pain and derive pleasure. (Gauthier, D. P. 1969) In this state which may or may not exist the men cannot agree unless acted upon by an outside force. On the other hand, Locke believed that the nature of man is 'free, equal and independent and that no one can man out of this state unless he consents to it. (Aaron, R. John Locke. 1967) The only way men form a society is by agreeing with other men to secure their property. Hobbes believed that men because of their selfish interests are constantly at war with other men because they are interested in the same things. Men are therefore compelled to elect a leader and form a society because of war. Locke's idea was that men are inherently governed by the law of nature which is identical to moral law. This law of nature dictates what is right and wrong and so the nature of man is always at peace. Man will only engage in war with other men because they have violated the law of nature and are not operating under reason.
On close examination, Locke's state of nature and Hobbes' state of nature do not refer to the same thing. At the outset, the two ideas seem to be stark opposite to each other, but they may be the same ideas in different stages. Locke's state of nature is pre-political while Hobbes’ is pre-social. (Greeson, M. P. (1994) This means that when Hobbes is talking about the state of nature he is referring to the nature of man outside of any social conditions and norms. A pre-social state. Hobbes therefore in his philosophy shows the importance of social conditioning and learning as an antidote for Hobbesian fear, perpetual and even social contracts. Locke and his ideas on the law of nature take for granted social conditioning and learning. His definition of a state of nature is pre-political. It is peaceful and more inclined to politics because it has been socially conditioned and inhibited by norms. (Greeson, M. P. 1994)
Hobbes's description of the state of nature is theoretical and hypothetical while Hobbes' description is normative. (Lemos, R. M. 1978). The Hobbesian state of nature is almost non-existent since society is already civilized and governed by civil laws and social laws. On the other hand, Locke's state of nature is normative. Hence, it is practical the at which it can enter into a social contract.
Thirdly, Locke’s for men to enter into a social contract complements that of Hobbes. This is because though Locke’s state of nature of man is peaceful and is under control of the law of nature, this freedom is infringed upon by others. This fear of interference resembles Hobbesian fear and is the motivation for a social contract. Hobbes's theory and Locke's theory, therefore, are similar on this point.
Hobbes and Locke differed on how the social contract would be enforced. Hobbes believed that since men were in constant war it would be difficult to honour the dictatehonoura social contract. He, therefore, proposes a sovereign power is needed to enforce the social contract. The sovereign power is not a party to the social contract. Locke's idea of a social contract naturally proceeds from the avoidance of solitary life. In the quest to avoid solitary life they start a family and eventually they form a legislature. Legislature is a positive, grant institution. The government is therefore obligated to serve the people. Locke also argued that man has a right to his own body as property and because the government is not out to protect that freedom a provision of the same should be made in the social contract. Since Hobbes's state of nature is hypothetical, his idea of a social contract is highly hypothetical as well. The men's obligation to obey the stipulations of a social contract and sovereign power is all out of fear. (Mouritz, T. (2010).
Hobbes and Locke differ on how the social contract is enforced but they complement each other on the state of nature and the motivations for a social contract.
References
Aaron, R. John Locke. 1967.Oxford: Clarendon Press,
Colby, P. 1987."'The Law of Nature in Locke's Second Treatise," The Review
Gauthier, D. P. 1969. The Logic of Leviathan. Oxford: Clarendon Press, -
Lemos, R. M. 1978. Hobbes and Locke. Atlanta: University of Georgia Press,
Locke, J. 1952. The Second Treatise of government. ed. Thomas P. Reardon.
New York: Bobbs-Merill Company, Inc.,
Mouritz, T. (2010). Comparing the social contracts of Hobbes and Locke. The Western Australian Jurist, 1(1), 123-127.
Malcolm, N. (1996). A summary biography. The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes, 13. Woolhouse, R. (2007). Locke: A biography. Cambridge University Press.
Greeson, M. P. (1994). Hobbes, Locke, and the State of Nature Theories: A Reassessment. Episteme, 5(1), 2.
