The fundamental differences between the political theories of Hobbes and Locke.
Both Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) in his Leviathan and Locke (1623-1704), in his Two Treatises of Government, were among the very earliest historical political theorists to work out a theory of political obligation. For both thinkers, the theory of pollical obligation attempts to justify our submission to political authority, on both moral and prudential grounds. I will argue that the similarities between Hobbes and Locke, respecting the State of Nature, Natural Law and Social Contract, arise because both were seeking a non-theological, rational-legal foundation for political or state authority. Second, I will explain how the fundamental differences regarding the aforementioned concepts, are of greater significance, and explain how they come to radically different conclusions regarding the State which emerges from the state of nature.
Table of Contents
1. How and why do Hobbes and Locke using similar concepts of states of nature, natural law and contract come to different conclusions?
1.1 The state of nature
1.2 Inconveniences of the state of nature
1.3 Theories of human nature
1.4 Natural law and natural rights
1.5 Trust theory vs. absolute sovereignty
1.6 Methodological differences
1.7 Conclusion
Objectives and Themes
This paper examines why Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, despite starting with similar analytical frameworks regarding the state of nature, natural law, and the social contract, arrive at profoundly divergent theories of political authority. The primary research goal is to contrast the rational-legal foundations of Hobbes' absolutism with Locke’s theory of limited government, focusing on how their differing views on human nature and methodology dictate their respective conclusions on the role of the State.
- Evolution of the "state of nature" as a political thought experiment.
- Distinction between egoistic self-preservation and rational moral duty.
- Comparison of "absolute sovereignty" versus "trust-based government."
- Impact of scientific and theological methodologies on political theorizing.
- Analysis of the right to rebellion and the limits of political power.
Excerpt from the Book
The state of nature
The state of nature is the imagined or hypothetical condition of people detached from political society. For both Hobbes and Locke, people in the state of nature are fundamentally free and equal. People are ‘free’ in the sense that everyone has the capacity to do what they want, when they want, an uncontrolled anarchic liberty, in so far as it is not regulated by any positive laws of a civil sovereign. Everyone is ‘equal’, in so far as we are all of the same human species, all similar by nature, and therefore, have the same right to do whatever it takes to preserve and enhance their existence. Both stated that the state of nature is governed by natural law, the voice of reason planted in man by God, which informs people of their basic rights to life, liberty and property. Natural law is also the source of wisdom which eventually leads people to quit the state of nature and all its inconveniences to enter into political society.
Hobbes and Locke describe the inconveniences of the state of nature in similar terms. The three main problems are: (1) There is no civil sovereign, namely the State, to make positive binding laws applicable to all. In the state of nature everyone is his/ her own judge of what that law is or requires. Natural law is purely subjective based on personal preference.(2) There is no common judge to interpret the law and try disputes. If people have to rely on their own judgement they are apt to be prejudiced in their own case, putting their own interests before objectivity.
Summary of Chapters
1. How and why do Hobbes and Locke using similar concepts of states of nature, natural law and contract come to different conclusions?: This introductory section outlines the scope of the study, situating both thinkers in their historical context of the English Civil War and their shared desire to replace divine right with a secular basis for authority.
1.1 The state of nature: Explores the shared definition of the state of nature as a hypothetical pre-political condition defined by individual freedom and equality.
1.2 Inconveniences of the state of nature: Details the shared practical problems of the state of nature, such as the lack of an impartial judge and the subjective nature of law, which necessitate the creation of a civil society.
1.3 Theories of human nature: Contrasts Hobbes' perception of humans as egoistic "pleasure-pain machines" governed by fear with Locke's more optimistic view that includes a capacity for justice.
1.4 Natural law and natural rights: Compares Hobbes' utilitarian interpretation of natural law as self-preservation with Locke's divine-law-based interpretation that creates inalienable rights.
1.5 Trust theory vs. absolute sovereignty: Examines the core architectural differences in their political systems, with Hobbes proposing an absolute, undivided Leviathan and Locke proposing a limited government based on trust.
1.6 Methodological differences: Analyzes how Hobbes' geometric-scientific method and Locke's reliance on Protestant faith and moral rationalism lead to their differing conclusions.
1.7 Conclusion: Summarizes that the divergent conclusions are deeply rooted in their differing philosophical anthropologies and their conflicting primary objectives regarding the state.
Keywords
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, State of Nature, Natural Law, Social Contract, Political Authority, Sovereignty, Leviathan, Limited Government, Human Nature, Political Obligation, Right to Rebellion, Rationalism.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The work focuses on comparing the political theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, specifically analyzing how their common use of the "state of nature" model leads to radically different models of state authority.
What are the central themes discussed?
The central themes include the secularization of political authority, the origins of civil society, the nature of rights, and the justification of absolute versus limited government.
What is the central research question?
The paper asks how two thinkers who utilize nearly identical analytical building blocks—state of nature, natural law, and social contract—arrive at such divergent conclusions regarding the structure and legitimacy of the State.
Which methodologies are employed by the authors?
Hobbes employs a geometric, scientific method modeled on Galileo, whereas Locke's approach is more deeply rooted in moral rationalism and Protestant religious presuppositions.
What does the main body cover?
The main body systematically compares the two thinkers' views on human motivation, the definition of natural law, the structure of the social contract, and their respective defenses of absolute and limited sovereignty.
Which fundamental keywords characterize the study?
Key terms include State of Nature, Social Contract, Natural Law, Leviathan, Sovereignty, and Trust Theory.
How does Hobbes differ from Locke regarding the right to rebel?
In Hobbes' theory, there is no right to rebel because sovereignty must remain undivided to prevent a return to the state of war; in contrast, Locke suggests that because the State holds power in trust, the people have a right to revolt if their natural rights are violated.
What role does 'fear' play in Hobbes' theory versus 'reason' in Locke's?
For Hobbes, the intense fear of violent death is the primary motivator for entering the social contract; for Locke, it is the rational need to protect life, liberty, and property that drives individuals to create political society.
How does the author evaluate the "geometric method" used by Hobbes?
The author suggests that while the method provides an aura of certainty, it is prone to dogmatism and fails to account for empirical realities, effectively turning "dubious opinions" into supposed "necessary truths."
- Arbeit zitieren
- Anthony Weaver (Autor:in), 1997, How and why do Hobbes and Locke using similar concepts of states of nature, natural law and contract come to different conclusions?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/1502981
