John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, two titans of 17th-century political thought, profoundly shaped Western political philosophy. While both were social contract theorists—believing that political authority derives from an agreement among individuals—their views on human nature, the state of nature, and the ideal form of government differed dramatically. This essay will delve into a detailed comparison of their core tenets, highlighting their contrasting perspectives.
Human Nature: Optimism vs. Pessimism
At the heart of their differing political philosophies lies their contrasting views on human nature. Hobbes, writing amidst the English Civil War, held a deeply pessimistic view. He saw humans in their natural state as driven by insatiable self-interest, constantly vying for power and resources. In his seminal work, Leviathan, he famously described this state as a "war of all against all," where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." This inherent selfishness, according to Hobbes, necessitates a strong, absolute sovereign to maintain order and prevent society from descending into chaos.
Locke, writing in a more stable period following the Glorious Revolution, presented a more optimistic view. While acknowledging self-interest, he believed humans are also capable of reason and cooperation. In his Two Treatises of Government, he argued that individuals possess natural rights, including the rights to life, liberty, and property, which pre-exist any government. This inherent rationality and capacity for moral behavior, according to Locke, allows for a more limited and consensual government.
The State of Nature: Anarchy vs. Inconvenient Freedom
Their differing views on human nature naturally led to contrasting conceptions of the state of nature. For Hobbes, the state of nature is a state of constant conflict, devoid of morality or justice. Without a sovereign to enforce laws, life is characterized by fear and insecurity. The social contract, in this context, is a necessary evil, sacrificing individual liberty for the sake of security and order.
Locke’s state of nature, however, is considerably less bleak. It is not a state of war, but rather a state of perfect freedom where individuals are governed by natural law. This natural law dictates that individuals should not harm one another's life, liberty, or property. The social contract, for Locke, is not about escaping a brutal existence, but about establishing a government to better protect and secure already-existing rights and liberties. The inconvenience lies in the lack of a defined legal system and impartial judge to resolve disputes in the state of nature.
The Ideal Government: Absolute Sovereignty vs. Limited Government
These contrasting views on human nature and the state of nature directly influenced their preferred forms of government. Hobbes advocated for an absolute monarchy, believing that only an all-powerful sovereign could effectively curb human selfishness and maintain social order. The sovereign's authority, in Hobbes's view, is absolute and unquestionable. Individual rights are subordinate to the needs of the state.
Locke, on the other hand, championed a constitutional government characterized by limited power and the protection of individual rights. He emphasized the separation of powers, arguing that government should be divided into legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent tyranny. He also strongly believed in the right of revolution if the government violated the natural rights of its citizens. This notion of a limited government with clearly defined checks and balances profoundly influenced the development of liberal democracies.
Conclusion: Lasting Impacts on Political Thought
The contrasting philosophies of Locke and Hobbes represent two fundamental approaches to understanding the relationship between the individual and the state. Hobbes's emphasis on order and security laid the groundwork for theories of authoritarianism, while Locke's focus on individual rights and limited government profoundly shaped the development of liberal democracy and continues to influence political discourse today. Understanding their differences remains crucial for comprehending the ongoing debates surrounding the balance between individual liberty and collective security.
