The topic that this paper will be analysing is the differences and similarities between both Hobbes’ and Locke’s view of the state of nature and to examine to what extent. This paper will do so by the following: analysing what they both define as the state of nature in the political and social sense using the study of Locke’s ‘Treatise of Government’ and Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’ and others. It will then evaluate and critique their ideologies and theories and if one seems to apply more in modern day, and if this is the case, why?
The first objective is to break down the definition of ‘the state of nature’ by both Locke and Hobbes’. In Andre Munro’s Encyclopaedia Britannica (2018), the state of nature can be defined as “the real or hypothetical condition of human beings before or without political association.” In accordance to John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, comparatively, both of their definitions on the state of nature maintain that for ‘man’ to have security there must be a governing or sovereign power to enforce the security and liberty of the people. However, this is where the comparisons end, as Hobbes and Locke see human nature in diametrically opposed ways. In Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (2014 Edition), he defines man’s human nature and life is one that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (pg97) deducing that as man is not by nature, social and thus there needs to be established a commonwealth or man would be victim to his desires. This ultimately should be enforced by a sovereign power that is in charge of the security of the common wealth and is to be given absolute authority to ensure it, otherwise if left to himself, man would fall into ‘a war of all against all’ (De Cive, 1651) . As according to Hobbes, the only reason for laws and a sovereign power to exist is based on the self-preservation of man and man would in turn conceded their rights to the government, in return for security. In contrast, John Locke’s view of human nature is that man by his own nature, a social animal and are “all free, equal and independent” (Chap VIII. Of the Beginning of Political Societies (Sec.95.)) and the state of nature does not enable man to harm another’s “life, health, liberty, or possessions.” (Treatise of Government, Chapter 2) Locke thought that man already has an inherent ability to determine right from wrong and are naturally good. In this state, man ought to agree to a commonwealth to protect those natural rights and ensure people abide and in protected from harm. Therefore, he believed that a civil society and sovereignty should be placed. However, unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that sovereign power should not be enforced, but agreed upon and welcomed for “life, liberty and property” rights to be protected. The sovereign’s powers sole existence is for the benefit of man which, Locke stated, could always be ceased and replaced if it no longer abides to the peoples ruling and benefit.
A second objective, which was briefly touched upon in the prior paragraph is the role of the state and the authority it holds in accordance to man. In Iain Hampsher-Monk’s ‘A History of Modern Political Thought (1992)’ it proposes that the Commonwealth ‘can be established either by institution – that is by mutual agreement of free individuals, or by acquisitions – by conquest of a previously existing sovereign.’ Hobbes suggests that by definition, as the state holds the authority, anything it does is just by definition and that man must “give up” their “Right of Governing […] to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner.” (Hobbes’ Leviathan p.87) This would ensure that the state would be able to maintain the security and order of civilisation, despite man’s liberties being oppressed. In contrast, Locke suggests that the role of the state is not to be the sole, dictatorship of man, but to be for “the good of mankind” and that the state or “rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power” . This brings up a dispute that seems to be an obstacle for Locke’s social construct, that Hobbes does not necessarily face (as the state is enforced whether or not elected and thus man cannot readily overthrow or re-elect), which is the issue of keeping the government from abusing their power and who enforces it. Locke stated that for the state “the people shall be [the] judge” as he believed those who are ‘elected’ to be a Representative of the state acts well when “trust [is] reposed in him…” . Therefore, he concludes that as men fundamentally know the difference between right and wrong and it was up to them to elect a government and that by man’s integrity there would be no greater way to judge and ‘overthrow’ those elected if they abuse their power, then those who elected them.
Lastly, there is the main evaluation and critique of Locke’s and Hobbes view of the state of nature, by using Rosseau’s arguments in ‘The Social Contract’. The main critique Rousseau has with Hobbes is the concept of man’s security being the only gift in the slave bonds of an absolute sovereign as “no one else may under pretext […] subject him without his consent ” and with that it Hobbes’ view of the state of nature and the Leviathan state would not necessarily be able to be maintained democratically, but tyrannically and most likely would have the problem of quelling revolution if the masses rose up. Locke, in comparison, is critiqued in his view of the acquisition of property as a right. Rousseau suggests that property by man’s nature could not be kept as a right as that would construct laws that were “always useful to those with possessions and harmful to those who have nothing” and thus it would only be beneficial in the social state if all man were to possess property, which is not possible as not all man are born or can easily acquire riches.
In conclusion, both Hobbes and Locke’s align in the view of the social contract of man and the natural laws needed to be secured in order for civilisation and the commonwealth to be sustained and provide protection for man, but that tends to be where the semblance ends. Locke’s state of nature, especially by the state of man, tends to be more optimistic than Hobbes’ as the former sees man as an individual with rights already known to them and the latter defines them as a creature of desire and therefore needs an absolute sovereign power to quash those desires in exchange gifting man their self-preservation and security but by tyrannical rule. Whereas, Locke’s account stems from man being from God’s image and therefore have the innate instinct of morality already ingrained. Thus, whilst as a state would only be needed to ensure and protect the freedoms and rights of man already defined, it would not be forcefully imposed on the people which is not unlike man’s modern-day democracy today.