Introduction to the Political Environment

Several philosophers arose in the 17th century and their varying thoughts and ideas shaped the way of life during this period. Their thoughts changed how people viewed the world and they continue to shape politics and human interactions to date. Heyman (705) asserts that this was a period of intellectual struggles between these philosophers considering the presence of top government structures in Europe at that time. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were among these intellectuals. Both British philosophers gave different views on

1. the state of nature,

2. political philosophy,

3. the social contract, and

4. religion.

Although there are instances where their thoughts were the same, they differed in several aspects which are discussed in this paper.

For Locke, in the state of nature man is rational, reasonable, and moral with the right to think for himself, control his movement, and go after pleasure bound by the law of nature. He regards the state of nature as a state of equality and freedom. He asserts that the law of nature provides all people access to essential earth resources. Any other laws are derived from the law of nature. This implies that the law of nature cannot be alienated from human beings. However, Hobbes has a different view and image of the state of nature. He regards the state of nature as “the war of all against all”. For him, there is no good living in the state of nature as human beings are always seeking to destroy each other in their struggle for power. Heyman (705) asserts that Hobbes saw “life in the state in nature as nasty, brutish, and short”. Though Hobbes agrees that there are some laws of nature that people should obey, “but they cannot be relied on in the state of nature” (Gough, 106). For the law of nature to apply, there must be covenants and agreements.

Locke’s social contract is that people are obligate to obey the government as a condition that their natural rights are protected. Generally, his social contract philosophy is that “government was created through the consent of the people to be ruled by the majority” (Nation, 85). According to Locke, persons would be willing to give up their autonomy for public civilization to get the protection of their possessions, freedom, desires, and privileges. Hobbes on the other hand believed that a social contract is a solution to the war in the state of nature. A social contract will ensure there is sovereignty and sovereign power safeguards the lives of the people. It is through the social contract that people can leave the state of nature and enter into civil society, and as soon as the government collapses, the state of nature becomes a threat.

Locke maintained that religion has to be separated from government and possessions when it comes to religion. He directly appealed for conscience which he termed as the “principle consideration” (Mortensen, 335). Calling for conscience indicates that Locke accommodated both the skeptics of religion and religious believers. He emphasized on the freedom of religion and sincere religious practice. He acknowledged that the knowledge of God is essential for human life but it cannot be imposed universally. However, this is not supported by Hobbes who is against religious pluralism. Hobbes called for uniformity in worship. He advocated for a public form of worship where all people would come together and bow to a similar set of beliefs. He justified private worship that is kept out of the public eye and a secret. As reported by Nadon (27), Locke’s main point in religion is that it is important to have shared communal display and allegiance to the state religion.

In political philosophy, Locke and Hobbes did share a common idea where they advocated for political laws that govern the interactions and existence of people. Locke supported a libertarian form of leadership while Hobbes justified an authoritarian leadership that would control irrational man. However, there are political views in which Locke and Hobbes differed. When it comes to politics, Hobbes was a theorist of sovereignty. Beiner (1107) asserts that Hobbes called for a sovereign authority that would see people give up their rights. This is the only way to control the irrational man and his desires. However, for Locke, the government has to be liberal and if it fails to fulfill its obligations to the people, then the people are allowed to question it without being victimized. Just as in the state of nature, Locke also believes in man’s freedom when it comes to politics and government. The separation of power in modem governments is influenced by Locke’s political philosophy.

In conclusion, Locke and Hobbes are two thinkers who had different views about human nature and the role of government. While Locke believed that people were naturally moral and reasonable, Hobbes believed that man is irrational, greedy, and cruel. That is why Hobbes supported absolute monarchy with belief that a powerful government would control irrational human beings. Locke maintained that the role of government is to ensure the security of the people and their property and uphold their natural rights. If the government violates natural rights, then the people had the right to overthrow it.

References

Beiner, Ronald. "Three Versions of the Politics of Conscience: Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke." San Diego L. Rev. 47 (2010): 1107.

Gough, J. W. The Social Contract: A Critical Essay of Its Development. Oxford University Press, 1936.

Heyman, Steven J. "The Light of Nature: John Locke, Natural Rights, and the Origins of American Religious Liberty." Marq. L. Rev. 101 (2017): 705.

Nadon, Christopher. "The secular basis of the separation of Church and State: Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Tocqueville." Perspectives on Political Science 43.1 (2014): 21-30.

Nation, Maegan. "Locke’s Social Contract: Is It Legitimate?". Political Science.

Mortensen, Reid. "Specious delusions: John Locke, knowledge and religious toleration." University of Queensland Law Journal, The 33.2 (2014): 335-355.

Version 1.0 Page 1 of 8 Issue Date:

CCCJ-OCD/Business Administration/v 1.0 Page 3 of 8

2020-April-20

2020-May-04