Compared with Hobbes’ Contractarian Theory, in What Areas Locke’s Proposal Is Different, and Explain How Such Differences Possibly Imply?

2017-2018/II/G11 IB Phil/P-2                     Preview Reading Worksheet

Reading to be previewed: Lock, Second Treatise of Government, Ch.2, Ch.3, Ch.8.

Note: please write your response directly on this worksheet (type your response on the blank space) and upload it to your personal file (preferably an independent file named “preview worksheet for optional theme”) in the Google Drive (affiliated to our class Gmail account).

As usual, I shall mark and comment your worksheet directly by using Google Doc.

QUESTION: Compared with Hobbes’ contractarian theory, in what areas Locke’s proposal is different, and explain how such differences possibly imply?

As Locke’s said himself, “to understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in.” Locke and Hobbes different from the beginning of defining a society. Hobbes defines the state of human as the state of war, “…during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war…”. The “war” isn’t just battle, but also the act of fighting, or conflicts. Meanwhile, Locke defines human’s state as a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit; a state of equality where all powers are equal and no one having more than another. Though the state of war or the enmity and destruction still existed, it’s not the natural  state of human. The state of war exists within a settled design upon another man’s life or an attempt to put another man into his absolute power. The man entered into the state of war is still in his state of nature. Since all powers or rights are equal, the one who threatens and the one who is threatened has equal rights to fight. Then, both of them are entering to the war state.

According to Locke, this war can only be stopped by people quitting the state of nature and entering the society. Hobbes states with the similar opinion of quitting the state of nature. However, Locke is claiming to make consents with each other for safe and peaceable living; Hobbes claims to restrain the state of nature by making contracts with powers for peaceable living. The reason to achieve peaceable living in different methods is they made different assumptions. Locke believes the community’s consent is the individual’s tacit agreements. Though a small part of individuals cannot agree with some agreements, the majority consents, then the individuals should consent because they agree to join into a community for security. Hobbes on the other hand didn’t believe humans can make agreements peacefully since their conflicted natures. He believed the end of commonwealth is to get themselves out from the condition of war by strong powers: the fear of breaking the covenants and the glory of not breaking it. Only the society can provide them these two powers. By making covenants between two people in oral can make sure nothing.

Concluding the two paragraphs above discussing about the difference of the state of nature and the reason to build society, there is a significant flaw can be found in Locke’s theory. Hobbes, however, makes very clear on this point. For Hobbes, people are in two states: the state of nature---the state of war; the relations of contracts. People’s states or relations are in contracts except the state of war, which is natural to man. Which means all other relations are conventional and the product of covenants. Hobbes makes clear that because there are only two states of humans, then we can claim all of the states of human except one are conventional. However, Locke doesn’t make this clear. He doesn’t make the assumption that the society is built because of the social contracts; nor humans are in the state of contract can maintain the society. He just arises the notion of society from nowhere. There are no connections between solving the conflicts and to form a new society. It seems like two people have conflicts, then the society is built. But how? How does the conflict between two people solved? And are they still in war state to make a society? Locke somehow jumps off the logic a while.