Comparison Of Hobbes’ And Locke’s Political Philosophies Essay

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are both contemporary philosophers who were made famous for their political philosophies especially on areas of government and the community. Although Hobbes was born forty one years ahead of Locke, both have agreed on certain ideas but remained in contrast with others. In this paper we will try to compare the main philosophies held by Hobbes and Locke, focusing on their opinions on government, community, leadership and the concept of social contract or covenant. This paper will also attempt to align the said philosophies in contemporary events particularly in the American life after September 11 attack. At the end of this paper, this author aims to establish the fact that Locke’s political philosophies are more practical, consistent and acceptable over that of Hobbes. Hobbes and Locke are particularly interested in human beings and how they interact with the world. Both believing in the existence of God, they both insist that human beings need a leader- a feature of human community that is a vital element of their survival. 1â€Å"Without a leader, the country would fall away into nothing†. They however differ on the type of leader that a community should have in order to survive. For Hobbes, there’s only one man that should rule or govern the people, and that is a king (Hobbes, Thomas 1994, p. 83). Hobbes maintains that it is only this king who should be given the authority and the responsibility to write laws, make decision and consequently of controlling the people. In order for people to survive, people are therefore compelled to obey the commands of the ruler, both in religious and government matters. Locke however believes the other way around. For John Locke, it is rather the people who should run the government and not the king. Consequently, Locke points to the idea that the responsibility of uniting and taking care of the needs of the whole community lies in the hands of the people and not on the sole control of one person. Unlike Hobbes, Locke somehow points to a democratic form of government wherein the people are given the right to participate in all affairs of the government including the responsibility of deciding what is best for the general public. Locke also suggests that the people should rather have to decide on who they wanted to rule over them. Moreover, since the power lies on the people, they have the right to overthrow a wicked ruler in the same way as they have decided to have him seated in the position (Locke, John 1997, p. 22). Because Hobbes maintains authoritarian form of government, he insists that 1â€Å"society could not exist except by the power of the state†. This is directly contrary to Locke’s view that man is inherently a social being and thus has the need and the ability to interact with others. Hobbes idea then simply would suggest that man is necessarily a creature that cannot decide for him nor does he has the ability to discern what is good and what is evil because he needs a ruler in order to establish a society. Moreover the statement suggests that man has to submit to an authority and after which all individual rights are gone and so man is compelled to obey. It is also important to note that Hobbes, in this aspect believes that man does not have the right to rebel against the ruler since the latter is assumed to be someone who does all things good and lawful. For Hobbes, the right thing for man to do is to shut up and obey and once this is done, anyone does not have the right to kill the obedient one. Because the state is the supreme ruler in the society, the ruler then is assumed to be wise enough to the point that all his affairs, his views and decisions are deemed just. Hobbes also assumes that 1â€Å"all of society is a direct creation of the state and a reflection of the will of the ruler†. Locke however has a better and more practical idea that is obviously been the basis of most governments, especially those that employ the democratic form of government. On the concept of social contract, Locke believes that by giving up our rights to â€Å"exact retribution for crimes†, we are in return given the right to just, impartial protection of our properties and out lives (Harris, Ian 1994). Relative to this, man still retain his rights to life and liberty. The state, according to Locke has only one role, and that is 1â€Å"to ensure that justice is seen to be done†. The ruler therefore is necessarily not the sole decision maker in the society, rather he is just an instrument appointed by the general public to serve justice and maintain peace. The government therefore, as peacemakers should not be involved in any form of injustice or any act that may disturb peace in the society. Otherwise, Locke believes that the people are given the right to kill or overthrow the ruler. Although Hobbes is in favor of the unlimited power of the state, he justified his point well by stating that the purpose of such unlimited power is to end all conflict and contention. Because he regarded people as creatures who are incapable of knowing what is good and evil, Hobbes believes that people have the tendency to freely live a material life which would result into conflict. Thus the avoid this, the state is given the sole and unlimited power over them. 1Both Hobbes and Locke believe that there is an implied contract between the state and the people as soon as a ruler is being placed in power. The difference however is that Locke regard that contract as something that impliedly sets the ruler as a judge over the affairs of the people while Hobbes set that contract as something that sets the ruler as a master of the people. Hobbes points out â€Å"all contracts are binding, even if entered into from fear of violence or pain of death† (Hobbes, 1994 p. 86). Hobbes does maintains that man does not have the ability to recognize good from evil because he believes that good and evil are established and defined by the will of the state (Hobbes, 1994 p. 28). This means that good and evil exist only because something or things are defined as such by the ruler. Hobbes then points to the idea that there exist no definite standard or basis for man to know what is the right thing to do and what is wrong. As with the idea of property and its ownership, Hobbes believes that the state is the one defining the property of somebody. Because man cannot discern good from evil, human beings without the state or the ruler cannot live in peace. Hobbes further assumes that peace can only exist and reign in a society when its people subject themselves to one absolute and common master. From here Hobbes might be suggesting that it is impossible for the world to experience peace since the world does have different rulers. On the other hand, Locke believes that humans inherently has the capacity to discern what is good from evil and are therefore capable of knowing what is lawful and what is not. â€Å"Most importantly, they are capable of telling the difference between what is theirs and what belongs to someone else† (Locke, John 2002, p. 87). Locke however recognizes the fact that despite this inherent capacity and ability, humans act the other way around. In Locke’s view, the only norm should be peace and nothing else (Cox, R. H. 1960, p. 32). Unlike Hobbes, Locke believes that man has the capacity to live in peace by refraining from hurting other and from molesting or invading their properties. Since man has the inherent capacity to discern what is good from evil, it not therefore impossible for the world to achieve peace even with the existence of different rulers. All rulers of different countries in the world are human beings who are supposed to be mature and wise enough to know what is best for their people. Because most of these rulers are elected by the people, then it is likely that it is the general preference of the people that dominates the government affairs. I also agree with Locke that when the ruler placed by the people on the seat of power abused his political powers, then the people have all the right to overthrow him and replace with somebody deserving. In the contemporary world, Hobbes and Locke’s political theories can still be relevant especially that these have, in bulk, something to do with rights and liberties of the people and the role of the government on managing the lives of its people. After the September 11 attack, the American government has been very vigilant and has somehow gone beyond the normal process of ensuring the security of the Americans. Such security measures are so rigid and strict to the point that the freedom-loving Americans thought there are losing much of their liberties. The government in defense ensures the public that such implementation of security measures plainly for national security. As for me, such measures are preferred because my security, that of my family and all Americans is of higher importance than my liberties. Let us remember that the role of the state is to ensure that justice is being served at all times, as Locke maintains. Part of serving justice is for the state to implement measures that see to it that nobody in its jurisdiction is being oppressed or hurt. To set up surveillance cameras, place military men in public places, have everyone’s baggage inspected in airports, hotels or malls are part of security measures and I do not see anything that suggests these things to be invading anyone’s liberties. Besides what is liberty if we will all die under crumbles of another attack? The President has been elected by the people and it is assumed that his rule has the consent of the majority. The American people are wise enough to discern who the best person at the Presidential seat is. By casting our votes, we are entrusting our security and the general condition of the American people in the hands on the person we voted upon. To entrust our security to the elected President does not mean we are being robots who have nothing more to do but to shut up and obey as what Hobbes suggest. To have security measures implemented in public places does not at all violate our liberties and thus we do not need to regain them. I believe that the American government still acts within the limits of justice and that I still regard all measures to be actions wherein human security rather than vengeance is of higher priority. I believe that the American government has not yet failed with its task of protecting its people so we as citizens do not have yet the right to rebel or withdraw our support. Let us remember that failure to take its primary responsibility is the only requisite Locke has provided in order for the people to have reasons to rebel. We still have our full liberties with us and security measures are implemented in order to regain one thing we have lost in the 911 attack: justice. BIBLIOGRAPHY Cox, R. H. Locke on War and Peace. OUP: Oxford, 1960. Harris, Ian. The Mind of John Locke. CUP: Cambridge, 1994. An excellent contextual analysis of the political and religious mindset of Locke’s Britain. Hobbes, Thomas. The Leviathan. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hacket. 1994. Locke, John. â€Å"Essay on the Law of Nature. † In Political Writings. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Ed. Mark Goldie. CUP: Cambridge, 2002. 1Locke versus Hobbes. 24 November 2007. < http://www. jim. com/hobbes. htm> Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Ed. Peter Laslett. CUP: Cambridge, 1997. Locke, John. â€Å"Two Tracts on Government. † In Political Writings. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Ed. Mark Goldie. CUP: Cambridge, 2002.