Hobbes Vs Locke

• Discuss the relevant differences between Hobbes’ and Locke’s accounts of the state of nature, and examine in particular each author's different ideas of natural law and how each understands individual rights in the state of nature. Whose depiction of the state of nature do you find more plausible?

The state of nature is an important feature of the idea of a social contract and on political theory as a whole. In social contract theory, it is the foundation of and justification for the social agreement. What is interesting though is that different political and philosophical theorists come up with different concepts for the state nature. Hobbes’ and Locke’s accounts of the state of nature as written in The Leviathan and the Second Treatise of Civil Government respectively, showcases this variance. Therefore, with both of them presenting and arguing different ideas on the state of nature, the laws of nature and individual’s rights in the state of nature vary as well. In this essay, I look to explore these differences and through looking at these differences express which of the two states is more plausible.

To explore why their respective states of nature differ, one has to look at the varying basic elements and principle from which they build their theories upon. For Hobbes, human nature is dictated by a desire for power, believing basic human psychology grows out of this “perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death” (Leviathan, Ch. 11). From this continual desire to attain power, be it natural or instrumental, stems the fear of death or injury. That is, through knowing your own power and desire to acquire more power, one is aware of and thus fears what others can do with their power and will do for more power. Additionally, in nature, people are naturally equal “in the faculties of body, and mind” (Leviathan, Ch. 13) because the strongest of men can be overcome by the weakest. This causes “equality of hope in the attaining of our ends” making as indulged in the pursuit of our own pleasures. Therefore, human nature becomes a combination of constant desire and fear, brought on by the struggle for power and equality of men. This self-interest in fulfilling our pleasures and avoiding dangers is what Hobbes bases his state of nature on.

On the other hand, Locke believes the nature of man is based off the premise that we are God’s property. God did not create man to have absolute authority over everything, humans and possessions alike. With all beings equal on this standpoint, no one has overriding claim to anything but is instead free to “order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature” (Second Treatise, Ch. 2, Sec. 4). Therefore, the state of nature is based off the idea of the freedom to fulfil desires without harming others’ ability to do the same.

This underlying difference in the basic elements of both Hobbes’ and Locke’s theories is ultimately what brings about the difference in their depictions of the state of nature. Hobbes’ depiction of the state of nature is not only characterised by the aforementioned psychological nature of humans but also by the interactions of man in nature. Thus, Hobbes’ conditions for the state of nature depend upon the natural equality of persons, competition for scarce goods, diffidence, and the need for self-preservation. The fact that all persons are self-interested in the pursuit of their desire and have equal liberty to claim whatever it is they desire, competition over scarce resources is created. He describes that, “if two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (Leviathan, Ch. 13). Similarly, because of this desire and equality, men tend to develop mutual distrust or diffidence towards one another in the fear that meeting one’s ends could result in the destruction or subduing of another’s. His state of nature is thus one of war, “consisteth no in actual fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary”(Leviathan, Ch. 13). His hypothetical construction of a state of nature is one without industry, co-operation, culture and one of continual fear and danger of violent death. In addition, as a consequence of the lawlessness, there is no justice as where there is no law there is no right or wrong.

Locke’s account of the state of nature is drastically dissimilar to that of Hobbes in that he doesn’t view the state of nature as a one characterised by war but one characterised by free will. His state of nature is a state of complete liberty to pursue what one’s sees fit to pursue without any interference from others. But because the basic elements of the state of nature suggest that one ought not to harm others or prevent them from fulfilling their desires, the state of nature is not one of licence. That is to say that man “has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession” (Second Treatise, Ch. 2, Sec. 6) nor harm another to their life, health, liberty, or possessions. This stems from the fact that we are seen as moral equals in the eyes of our creator, God. And seeing as we are the property of God, it is not up to us to decide whether or not we can cause harm to others or ourselves alike.