Comparing Political Philosophies: Hobbes and Locke on the Social Contract
SECTION B). Thematic Text
John Locke’s Two Treatises on Government
John Locke, a prominent philosopher, penned two influential treatises on civil government. The first treatise critiques the theological justification for absolute monarchy presented by Robert Filmer in his work, Patriarcha. The second treatise delves into Locke’s own political thought.
The Second Treatise of Government
Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprises 19 chapters and explores the concept of the social contract, similar to other theorists of his time. He begins by examining the hypothetical “state of nature,” where individuals possess inherent natural rights bestowed by God. However, this state can lead to conflict and war, necessitating the establishment of a civil society or state.
Chapter VII defines the state and the means of entering it, emphasizing the need for an authority to resolve conflicts, ensure safety, and protect natural rights. Locke explicitly rejects the notion of absolute monarchy.
Chapter VIII posits that the state originates from the free choice of citizens and that sovereignty resides in the people, who choose to abide by the will of the majority.
Chapter XII discusses the separation of powers, with the legislature holding supreme power, distinct from the executive branch. Locke argues that relations between states, which remain in a state of nature, should be managed by what he terms the “federative power.”
Locke’s Political Philosophy: Social Contract and Liberalism
Locke’s work falls within the tradition of social contract theory, leading to his ideas of political liberalism. He employs the hypothetical state of nature to explore the potential for peaceful coexistence, human tendencies towards selfishness or altruism, and the nature of natural rights.
Locke’s philosophy aligns with natural law principles, as he believes in the existence of God-given natural rights. The establishment of civil society, according to Locke, embodies liberal ideals such as:
- Popular sovereignty and majority rule
- The inalienable right to self-defense
- Fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property
- Separation of powers with legislative supremacy
- Legitimate power based on guaranteeing individual rights
Comparing Hobbes and Locke
Both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are key figures in social contract theory. Their theories share some common ground but also exhibit significant differences.
Similarities
- Both Hobbes and Locke begin with a hypothetical state of nature outside of political society.
- They agree that individuals in this state are naturally free, equal, and independent.
- Both argue that the state arises from a contract or agreement among citizens.
Differences: The State of Nature
Hobbes paints a bleak picture of the state of nature as a “war of all against all,” characterized by insecurity, violence, and the constant threat to life and property. He believes humans are inherently selfish and aggressive, driven by a natural desire to satisfy their needs in a world of scarce resources. In the absence of law, there is no right or wrong, and everyone has a right to everything, including the lives of others. Fear and insecurity necessitate the formation of a civil society.
Locke, on the other hand, envisions a state of nature governed by a God-given natural moral law, from which natural rights to life, liberty, and property are derived. However, individuals can still violate these rights, leading to violence and insecurity, ultimately justifying the creation of a civil society.
Differences: The Social Contract and Political Power
While both Hobbes and Locke acknowledge that individuals relinquish some freedom in exchange for security within civil society, their justifications for the social contract differ. For Hobbes, fear and the pursuit of safety drive the creation of the state. Locke, however, emphasizes the preservation of natural rights and the administration of justice as the primary motives.
Their views on political power also diverge significantly. Locke champions political liberalism, advocating for limited government and individual rights. Hobbes, in contrast, supports absolutism, believing that a strong sovereign is necessary to maintain order and prevent a return to the chaotic state of nature.
Locke argues for the separation of powers, with the legislature holding supremacy over the executive. Hobbes rejects this division, asserting that the sovereign must possess absolute power to enforce laws effectively.
Differences: Sovereignty and the Right to Rebellion
In Locke’s view, citizens retain their sovereignty even after entering into the social contract and have the right to alter or remove the government if it fails to uphold their natural rights. This right to rebellion is a cornerstone of his political philosophy.
Hobbes, however, maintains that individuals irrevocably surrender their rights upon entering the social contract. The sovereign stands outside the contract and possesses absolute authority. Citizens cannot dissolve the state or challenge its legitimacy, even if it becomes tyrannical.
Despite his support for absolutism, Hobbes does acknowledge some limits to the sovereign’s power. The sovereign’s primary duty is to ensure the security of its subjects, and individuals have the right to disobey orders that directly threaten their lives or well-being.
In conclusion, while both Hobbes and Locke contributed significantly to social contract theory, their contrasting views on human nature, the role of government, and the rights of individuals have had a profound impact on Western political thought.