In current society, a structured government is a norm, however, philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke studied what the absence of a central power would look like. Through Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, both philosophers aim to answer the questions of social and political states prior to a common ruler. By examining both Hobbes and Locke’s views on the “state of nature” as well as their “social contracts” this paper will conclude that Hobbes’ pessimistic view on society without structure is the most reasonable.
Before understanding what each philosopher believed, it is essential to comprehend what an overall state of nature is. The state of nature is the term to define how men lived prior to the creation of societies. Both Hobbes and Locke are similar in that they begin their works by describing this state as vastly different when compared to a society with structure. However, the difference is apparent as Hobbes’ pessimism contrasts with Locke’s optimism for the state of nature.
Hobbes’ state of nature can be broken down into a primary and secondary state. A primary state of nature is one that is prior to the creation of the laws of nature. The secondary state of nature is when the laws of nature are present. Focusing on the first state, Hobbes’ claims that a primary state of nature is a state of war. He claims that power is desired by all men thus there is “no way for any man to secure himselfe” (Hobbes, 184). If all men are created equal it is fair to assume that each person is sufficient enough to fight one another. With that being said, there is a higher chance for argument resulting in a state of war. Hobbes believed that each man thinks he is superior to the other. With a common threat, there is a lack of security and little trust in society. The foundation of mistrust creates a dangerous atmosphere full of fear. Hobbes wrote that in a state of war “where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice” (Hobbes, 186). It is clear that without a unifying figure, society stays in a state of war and there is no structure. To solve this problem, Hobbes turns to his second state of nature.
In order to solve the issue of fear and chaos in a city, Hobbes presents his laws of nature. He put together a set of nineteen laws that he thought help restore order to society. Out of the nineteen, the first three impact his social contract the most. The first Law of Nature is “to seek Peace, and follow it” (Hobbes, 190). To live in a society that is cohesive, it is essential to seek change. At some point, the state of war, specifically living in fear, becomes too overwhelming. The men that were all competing would need to come together and seek out peace. Next, the second law is that each man should be willing to give up their rights if another man is willing to do so. Again, unity is only achieved when everyone is on the same page. If all men are expected to follow the same laws and report to the same ruler, it is only fitting that each should be held to the same standards. Lastly, the third Law of Nature is that “men performe their Covenants made” (Hobbes, 201). This last law focuses on the implementation of justice. After laws are created, and all men have agreed to comply, justice must be implemented so those who wrong the law are held accountable. It is through Hobbes’ laws of nature that men can escape the state of war and find peace.
Hobbes continues that a social contract is needed to move out of the state of nature. With the help of the nineteen laws, men are able to come together and create a contract. Hobbes describes this new form of society as the commonwealth. Each man in the commonwealth should say to each other, “I Authorize and give up my Right of Governing my selfe, to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorize all his Actions in like manner” (Hobbes, 227). Since each man is stating this pledge to each other, there is no excuse to break it. He continues that the only way that men can escape the state of war is to confide collectively in one ruler. Through the use of a Sovereign, the commonwealth can be represented. Hobbes states that these mutual covenants, or contracts, authorize a representative.
One key point of these covenants they are not a mutual agreement with the Sovereign. He can not be held accountable or given justice because he is simply ruling for the good of the people. This ruler has the power to amend laws, judge laws, and appoint individuals to help him judge the laws. As previously stated, he is not accountable to the laws created. His role is solely to defend the commonwealth and uphold the contract that the men created. Through the use of the laws of nature and the creation of the social contract, Hobbes’ Leviathan concludes by describing how society would benefit from a common ruler. While Hobbes views the state of nature as a state of chaos, with no obligations, and war, John Locke has a differing perspective. Locke considers the state of nature to be a place of order and good.
In Locke’s state of nature, men are expected to preserve themselves as well as all of mankind. No man has power over another and each has rights to life, liberty, and property. Locke viewed this state as one with total freedom where all men are equal beings. He believed that men are not all equal in monetary wealth in this natural state, however, they have equal rights in not being subjected to give up their freedoms. Part of this said freedom is man’s right to property.
If there was no law to divide up land, Locke believed that labor leads to ownership. Locke states that “the labour of [a man’s] body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his” and “thereby makes it his property” (Locke 19). The act of deeming something as one's property is referred to an appropriation. In the state of nature, Locke believed “no man’s labor could subdue, or appropriate all” (Locke 22) thus there are three limits to this reallocation of property. First, if a man were to remove a commonly owned item from society, he is required to leave enough for the others to enjoy. Second, a man should only use what he needs and must not let anything spoil. The last limit is that man can only appropriate by his own labor. Locke understood that a right to property in the state of nature is not one to be tampered with.
When rights are taken away, Locke recognizes a state of war as “a state of enmity and destruction” (Locke 14). This state exists when someone, such as a criminal, pits themselves against society. Similar to how security for property motivates men to limit destruction, the state of war is also a motivator. The state of war enables fear that the rights of men will be eliminated thus it pushes society towards the creation of a social contract. Locke believed that men were capable of making contracts and that a social contract was essential. He believed that though men work for the good of everyone, it is important to make them keep their promises.
Although Locke did not have as pessimistic of a view on the state of nature, he still believed that it was essential to stay out of the state. He believed that there are three main reasons not to remain in the state of nature. Even though there is a desire to come together for a common law, “men being biassed by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases” (Locke, 66). As stated, the first reason is that men follow their own selves and are not interested in the laws when they do not follow personal interest. Next, he believed that men are not impartial judges because “passion and revenge are very apt to carry them too far, and with too much heat, in their own cases; as well as negligence, and unconcernedness, to make them too remiss in other men's” (Locke 66). Lastly, Locke states that in the state of nature there is a lack for a common power to enforce punishments after the judgment has been decided. Although both Locke and Hobbes define the state of nature as a common ruler, Hobbes’ perspective is more realistic.
Each philosopher agrees that a contract is necessary to keep society in a good state and that there are three types of government created. Hobbes mentioned monarchy, democracy, and aristocracy while Locke switched the last for oligarchy. While along similar lines, Hobbes’ viewpoint holds more validity as he believed that these governments cannot be mixed in contrast to what Locke believed. He did not think there is the ability to mix a monarchy, where the sovereign is one person and an aristocracy where the representative is a part of the people. Furthermore, the two differ with regards to the dissolution of the government. Locke firmly believed that though a social contract is made, it can always be broken in this case. However, Hobbes’ more concrete and consistent stance claims that once power is transferred to the sovereign there is no going back. Hobbes understood that when people try to overthrow the government it is important to hold ground yet continue to limit tyranny.
Overall, it is important to reflect on what philosophers have spent years dissecting in order to ensure the current government works to its best ability. Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government help to answer what a state of nature is like and how men are able to escape it. Again, Hobbes’ pessimistic view on society might be quiet negative, however, it is also extremely relevant and realistic. All men are created equal and through these philosophers, it is clear social contracts are needed to keep peace and balance in society between them.