Hobbes vs. Locke: Contrasting Social Contract Theories
Hobbes believed that the authority limits us (e.g., strong man + apple, kill), which is reflected in his famous phrase: “Man is a wolf to man.” According to Hume, man has a natural tendency to be afraid of something powerful. Instead, Hobbes argues that by failing to adhere to religion or positive law in the natural state, there is a continuing struggle between men, creating a condition of fear and insecurity. This fear leads to the formation of a social contract, delegating power to a king with absolute government. Fear of prudence led to the signing of the social contract, establishing positive laws, morals, and religion.
The covenant is established between both parties, in which the king imposes a religious cult that is unique. This is because religion has led to wars; the subjects are bound to obey the king. This power is absolute power in the monarchy defended. Thus, we speak of a SUBMISSION AGREEMENT in which the subject is subjected to rules that must be followed, or they will be punished. This submission makes the human being social by nature. As a contract in which both parties agree, the monarch must win the title by coercion, ensuring life and property to his subjects. If the monarch breaks their part of the deal by being incompetent, they deserve to be dethroned. The king is identified with a Leviathan (strong monster) as it can resist any rebellion. Finally, the monarch is chosen by divine right as Bossuet argued, the ruling monarchs because they fulfill the covenant that it deserves.
Social Contract: Locke’s Perspective
Locke criticizes the state theory proposed by Hobbes. It is a NATURAL LAW THEORY because it defends the existence of natural rights. Every man has inherent rights, which are life, property, and freedom, conceived as property rights for Locke, not only on the physical plane but also referring to liberties. In the state of nature, men have dignity as there are moral rights which man cannot be deprived of; they are inalienable rights. Not even the king may limit these rights. There is a defense of liberal contract. This contract is based on the following principles:
- Separation of state powers: The sovereignty does not reside in the king but in the people. The powers are divided into:
- Executive: Enforces laws – king.
- Legislature: Enacts laws, judicial power – parliament.
- Federated: Power of alliances and wars with other countries, international relations – parliament.
Each of these powers has its independent judiciaries.
Criticism of absolutism: Requires the consent of the people for the king to be legitimate. The people must approve laws by electing representatives to their parliament. Locke argued that the English people have natural rights that the king cannot break. He advocates a representative government consisting of elements of the people to represent their interests based on the ratio of power.Religious Tolerance:
Locke lays down the boundaries between church and state. The state must address civilian goods but not the salvation of the soul. On the other hand, faith cannot be inculcated by force. The civil power must not intervene in religious matters, and not vice versa; they are autonomous. However, one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Locke’s tolerance has limits; no tolerance for Catholics or against atheists because they are considered enemies.