The 17th century is recognized as one of the most destructive and chaotic periods in Europe’s history. For over three decades since the year 1618, Central Europe was engulfed in war advanced by conflicts between Protestants and Catholics, disease, famine, and blatant dynastic dictatorship. Scotland and England were immersed in civil conflicts advanced by Parliamentary and Royalist supporters. It is important to note the former advocated for ideal considerations of individual rights while the latter demonstrated strong support for the Stuart Dynasty. This period of suffering and political instability advanced questions regarding civil society, human Nature and government structure. John Locke (1632-1704) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) are famous English philosophers who established varying ideologies on the State of Nature and Social Contracts. It is important to note that both men were raised in families that would be considered middle class, a factor that gave them access to ideal formal education. However, Hobbes was raised in an Anglican family, while Locke’s family was Puritan. During the war, Hobbes demonstrated support for the royalists, while Locke supported the Parliamentarians. This paper aims to critically analyze Hobbes’s view of the State of Nature and Social Contracts and Locke’s criticism of these ideologies.
Born in 1588, Thomas Hobbes lived in one of the most critical periods in England, witnessing the infamous English Civil War (Hobbes 31). The war was advanced by clashes between the king and the Monarchists. It is important to note that the Monarchists preferred the monarch’s traditional authority, while the Parliamentarians led by Oliver Cromwell advocated for more authority and power to be assigned to the quasi-democratic institution under the Parliament (Hobbes 31). Hobbes, through his political theory, presents a concession between the two conflicting parties. Hobbes rejects the concept of the kings’ Divine Rights, as illustrated by Robert Filmer in Natural Powers of Kings and Patriarcha. According to Filmer, a king’s authority is assigned by God, making it absolute (Hobbes 31). This meant established political obligation as an illustration of an individual’s obedience to God (34). This perspective subsumed political obligation under religious compulsion. Hobbes (31) also debunks early perceptions of democracy adopted by the Parliamentarians who advocated for power sharing between the King and Parliament. By rejecting the two ideologies, Hobbes presented himself as a radical conservative. He claimed that political obligation and authority are founded on the individual interests of citizens who are considered equal, with none having the power to rule over others. At the same time, Hobbes illustrates his conservative opinion by arguing that the monarch must be relinquished absolute power and authority to guarantee society’s survival.
The Theory of Human Nature
Hobbes’ political theory can be effectively comprehended if split into two; the theory of human motivation, also known as psychological egoism, and the social construct theory centred on the putative state of Nature (Hobbes 32). In the theory of human Nature, Hobbes advances a particular perception of politics and morality as documented in Leviathan, a philosophical masterwork published in 1651. His ideas were influenced by novel discoveries that allowed effective description and prediction of the universe based on universally established laws of Nature. Hobbes’s (33) aim was to establish a theory on human Nature with the capacity to analogous the discoveries made in scientific studies on the inert universe. As a result, his theory on human motivation is informed by contrivance, the general interpretation that everything is a product of matter in constant motion (Hobbes 35). This, according to Hobbes, encompasses human behaviour. In most cases, individuals’ behaviours are a product of specific kinds of minor mannerisms, some of which may be invisible to the self. Mannerisms such as talking and walking are a product of other actions incorporated within human beings. It is important to note that the latent actions that allow individuals to walk and talk are advanced by ideal interactions between people and the environment creating a cause-and-effect chain that facilitates the establishment of specific human behaviours that are evidently observable (Hobbes 34).
Hobbes’ viewpoint describes human beings as complex organic machines with the capacity to effectively respond to stimuli produced by the universe in accordance with established universal edicts of human Nature. His view on human psychology mechanistic quality suggests the subjective disposition surrounding normative claims (Hobbes 35). For instance, ‘hate’ and ‘love’ are words commonly used to describe what one is repelled by and drawn to, respectively. This implies that the terms ‘bad’ and ‘good’ have no specific meaning; rather, they are used as descriptions of one’s aversions and appetites. Based on this viewpoint, ethical terms do not describe an objective state of matters but are instead reflections of one’s preferences and tastes. To add to subjectivism, Hobbes (35) deduces from the mechanistic ideology of human Nature urging that humans are exclusively and necessarily self-interested. This means that individuals tend to pursue their own interests by responding mechanistically through being drawn to their desires and repelled by those that they consider averse. This serves as a universal claim as it encompasses all human behaviour under varying circumstances. According to Hobbes (37), humans are motivated primarily by the desire to advance their situations for the better to actualize the satisfaction of one’s own needs. Human Nature is infinitely appetitive, which makes individuals genuinely concerned about their own interests. Hobbes contends that adults often take care of children as a self-fulfilling act because of the sense of obligation advanced by the act of caring.
Another attribute that Hobbes associates with human Nature is the ability to apply reason when necessitated. According to Hobbes (37), humans have a rational capacity to identify and pursue their individual desires and interests as effectively as possible. However, human reasoning does not evaluate their specific ends because of value’s subjective Nature. Instead, it barely serves as spies and scouts used to effectively identify ways that will advance the actualization of one’s desires. It is important to note that rationality is morally instrumental. It has the capacity to subtract, add and contrast sums, thereby enabling humans to formulate the most effective means to specific ends one might have. Based on his opinion concerning human Nature, Hobbes proceeds to construct a thought-provoking and persuasive argument as to why individuals must be willing to completely submit to political power and authority. Hobbes achieves this by visualizing individuals in the circumstances before the creation of society as the state of Nature. in a situation prior to the establishment of society, the State of Nature.
State of Nature
Hobbes contends that individuals are naturally rational and self-interested. As a result, they have the capacity to opt to submit to political authority advanced by a sovereign power to facilitate the establishment of an ideal civil society that can accommodate individuals’ personal interests. This is actualized by visualizing individuals in a State of Nature. According to Hobbes (37), human beings are exclusively self-interested, are equal to each other, and have access to limited resources. This means that there is no single individual with the power and authority to compel all human beings to cooperate. Based on these conditions, in view of the State of Nature, Hobbes perceives it as unbearably brutal. It is important to note that in the State of Nature, individuals are in constant fear of dying at the expense of another person’s survival. This means that individuals cannot guarantee long-term satisfaction with their desires and needs. Besides, no complicated long-term cooperation can be attained in the state of Nature because of the distress it advances in society. Based on Hobbes’s notion that individuals tend to prioritize their desires and interests, he concludes by stating that the State of Nature is arguably the worst-case scenario for human beings. The State of Nature is one of unending and unnecessary conflicts and war.
Social Contract
However, based on Hobbes’s perception of individuals as having the ability to reason, the state of Nature is not completely hopeless. Individuals can apply reason to identify effective ways that can help them leave the state of Nature. This can be achieved by recognizing ideal laws of Nature that, in turn, enhance the establishment of a functioning civil society (Hobbes 39). One of the most important laws of Nature mandates that individuals pursue peace, as illustrated by others while maintaining one’s right to pursue conflicts when others fail to pursue peace. By applying reason and acknowledging the rationality surrounding Hobbes’s perception of human beings, individuals are expected to create a social contract that advances ideal living compared to what is produced by the State of Nature. The social contract consists of two different contracts. In the first contract, individuals must decide to create a society by reciprocally and collectively renouncing the liberties they had against one another advanced by the State of Nature (Hobbes 39). In the second contract, individuals must permeate specific people by assigning them authority and power to effectively enforce the first contract. Hobbes (39) suggests that in order for individuals to do away with the State of Nature, they must agree to harmonious living under the regulation of common laws and the creation of an ideal enforcement mechanism for the laws incorporated within the social contracts.
Sovereignty is usually invested with the power and authority to establish appropriate punishments that can be subjected to those that fail to comply with the social contracts (Hobbes 39). Hobbes argues that social contracts create better societies compared to that advanced by the State of Nature where individuals are encouraged to the prioritization of one’s own needs and interests. The idea of social contacts advances the creation of civil societies where morality and justice are equally upheld. Unlike in social contracts, State of Nature makes it difficult for individuals to achieve ideal cooperation. This is because in Social contracts, individuals avail power and authority to specific people whose primary duty is to force everyone to cooperate. However, Hobbes points out the harsh realities of a sovereign society arguing that there are instances in which men’s reasoning can be clouded by their selfish desires to fulfil their own needs at the expense of others (Hobbes 40). The idea of limiting sovereign power may invalidate the effectiveness of a social contract as absolute power and authority. Hobbes considers the issue with social contracts are minor compared to the adverse implications associated with the State of Nature. It is important to note that despite ineffective management by a sovereign, in most cases, these individuals are able to effectively regulate how people live and interact with each other.
Based on the presented arguments, Hobbes considers morality, society, and politics as a commodious living that is chastely conventional. Before the establishment of social contracts, there was no moral compass that dictated how individuals are expected to behave and interact with each other State of Nature permits individuals to pursue their own interests even when it means killing another person to get whatever one desires. On the other hand, social contracts advocate for sovereign power were individuals are governed by people assigned power and authority. According to Hobbes (41) social contracts are a fundamental source of everything good and ensures society’s survival. Human beings have the power to either to comply with the terms associated with social contracts or choose to return to the adverse State of Nature. Hobbes (42) contends that no reasonable individual would opt for the State of Nature over Social Contracts. Thus, according to Hobbes’s political theory, humanity can only guarantee its ideal survival by creating social contracts that assign absolute power and authority to sovereigns advancing the creation of civil societies. However, Hobbes point of view received a lot of criticism, particularly by John Locke.
John Locke Criticism of Hobbes Arguments
Born in 1632 John Locke is one of the most celebrated English philosophers. Some of his greatest works include political writings incorporated in his publications ‘Two Treaties on Government’ (Locke 68). In the first treaty, the philosopher debunks Robert Filmer’s argument that political authority is embedded in religious authority. In the second treaty, Locke offers constructive perceptions concerning the aims and validation of civil government. Locke (69), notes that the State of Nature is a natural condition for human beings as it offers individuals the liberty to live life as one wishes while pursuing their interests. However, this does not mean that individuals are allowed to do as one pleases at the expense of other’s wellbeing. Even though, The State of Nature does not entail any civil authority or an actual government that can subject people who refuse to abide to laws to appropriate punishments, it does not mean there is no morality (Locke 68). According to Locke (70), the State of Nature should be considered pre political rather than premoral. the fact that there is no civil authority in place does not mean that morality is exempted. Locke notes that in the State of Nature, individuals are presumed to be equals and thus have the capacity to discover new things and live within the limits of the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, according to Locke, is founded on morality as ordained by God (Locke 70). Biblically, man is expected to live in accordance with the ten commandments wic stipulate ow individuals must behave and interact with each other.
Since the State of Nature is founded on religious principles, Locke advocates for the view that this state is perfect for humanity as it ensures that all people recognize their equal power and authority while upholding morality (Locke, 71). Therefore, the State of Nature should not be quantified as a state of unnecessary conflicts and wars as illustrated by Hobbes. However, there are considerations of other factors that may advance conflicts in the State of Nature such as the scramble for limited resources. Although the State of Nature offers individuals liberty to acknowledge the Law of Nature which limits people from harming each other, conflicts are prone to arise when a group of individuals declare war on another. For instance, when one steals something that belongs to someone else, conflicts are likely to arise since in a State of Nature, there is no sovereign with the power and authority to resolve such an issue. Locke (71) also contends that the State of Nature should not be treated as a condition to humanity as advanced by Hobbes. Instead, the State of Nature must be perceived as a means through sic societies can attain political stability. According to Locke (71) , the State of Nature advocates for humanity’s alignment with Nature. Society comprises of males and females, were the males often serve as the protectors and providers. This can be translated into politics to ensure that the people assigned with power and authority demonstrate values that are embedded in religion and Nature.
Conclusively, although Locke and Hobbes share contradicting opinions on the State of Nature, their ideologies played a crucial role in the development of Social Contracts. Hobbes laid the foundation for civil society by advocating for social contracts that mandated society to appoint sovereigns with the power and authority to compel individuals to cooperate effectively to advance society’s stability and continuity. Hobbes contends that individuals are naturally rational and self-interested, which must be regulated to achieve cooperation among people and advance the establishment of ideal civil societies. Locke, on the other hand, explored the significance of the State of Nature claiming that humanity can achieve a perfect state of being by recognizing the importance of individuals rights that are embedded in religion. While obbes advocates for sovereign authority, Locke supports the idea of self-governance and compliance with the Law of Nature.
Works Cited
Hobbes, Thomas. (1988). Leviathan. In Edgar E. Knoebel (Eds.), Classics of Western Thought: The Modern World, Volume III (pp. 31-42). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Locke, John . (1988). Of Civil Government. In Edgar E. Knoebel (Eds.), Classics of Western Thought: The Modern World, Volume III (pp. 68-82). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
write