12, February 2008 Belligerent and Nonviolent
Matt Brickell
Influenced by different backgrounds, and differing conditions in the times when they lived and wrote, Hobbes and Locke created divergent portrayals of humans in the state of nature. Hobbes conceived of an inherently competitive and violent state of nature for man and woman while Locke believed that reasonable men and women lived more peacefully in their natural state. Because the forms of government that they endorsed were fitted to these alternate conceptions of human nature, they reached very different conclusions between he government and the individual. In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes asserts that desires drive human nature. He claims that all men and women are created equal, not in every attribute, but in such a way that one with strength has lesser intelligence and one who is weak has greater intellect . As they strive to satisfy their desires, a struggle for power ensues among these well matched human beings in the state of nature. This conflict is not brief since its source is "a perpetual and restless desire of power...that ceases only in death"(Hobbes , p.161). Faced with constant competition humans act only in their own self-interest in order to survive. Their disregard for others creates "a condition of war of every one against everyone; in which case every one is governed by his own reason; and there is nothing he can make use of, that may not be a help...in preserving his life"(Hobbes, p.189). When individuals govern themselves without limits imposed by the state, the result will be actions only in their self-interest, whih is far reaching considering that Hobbes believes
"every man has a right to everything; even to another's body" (Hobbes, p. 189) . Only a strong government will be able to maintain peace. Since, in Hobbes' opinion, human nature is motivated by self-interest and selfpreservation, with the natural consequence of this being a constant state of war , civil society arises as a requirement for survival. Without it, life would be "nasty, poor, brutish, and short"(Hobbes, p.120). Hobbes considers two forms of government for this society, a commonwealth and an absolute monarchy, and endorses the latter because it is better suited to maintain peace. Hobbes explains the concept of a commonwealth as the "restraint upon themselves [men]...[in] the foresight of their own preservation...getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war" (Hobbes, p. 223). Although Hobbes believes all men and women are free from birth, to free themselves from a competitive state of nature, citizens must relinquish personal rights to the commonwealth(Hobbes, p.227). The potential for factionalism in such a state, however, inspires in Hobbes that the best sovereign would be an absolute monarchy. Despite showing support for the commonwealth, Hobbes believes that the best sovereign would be in the form of an absolute monarchy. The one he promotes seems to be a composite of the monarchies of the pre-revolution French and English, with the power to determine laws, to head the church, and to be the supreme authority in all disputes. Hobbes shows that fear is another great motivator, and fear of laws lessens crime and moves society towards freedom(Hobbes, pp. 263-63). Hobbes theorizes that this fear of oppression by others in the state of nature, instead of begetting more violence, should be channeled into
the sovereign authority. By doing this, Hobbes believes that subjects can achieve a true state of liberty(Hobbes, p. 163). John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government , envisions a far different state of nature than his predecessor, based in his more biblical, peaceful, optimistic outlook. Locke assumes that the state of nature will be largely moral. He believes humans are moral and have an innate sense of reason, which guides him to actions that not only are in the best interest of him or her but also everyone else in the state of nature . While Hobbes believes that equality would promote conflict, Locke believes it will have the opposite effect because, "being all equal and independent...there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, may that authorize us to destroy one another , as if we were made for one another's uses" (Locke, p. 9). Locke's opinion is based in a more religious view that man is intrinsically good; even so, while humans are not evil or egotistical as Hobbes might suggest , Locke admits they may possess selfish tendencies. He says this, "every man is equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice...however free"(Locke, p.66) This detour from the path of good nature suggests that men and women may be motivated not only by reason but also by their emotions . This combination allows for individuals to be both altruistic towards their peers and selfcentered in other respects. The innate goodness of humans is central to Locke's choice of the government that best fulfills the purpose required of it , but it also hinges on an idea that further binds the people together, property. Locke believes in an individual's right to self-preservation
and subsistence. He also believes that all men and women are created equal, and as a result they all have the same needs. Locke assumes that an individual's right to property is related to his/her labor(Locke, p.20), and that one can only acquire as much as one can consume, thus leaving enough possible private property for all others to consume , thus leaving enough private property to meet the needs of others. "No mans labor could subdue or appropriate all...so that it is impossible for any man to intrench upon the right of another or to acquire himself a property"(Locke, p.22). This faith in natural limits on man's ability to produce and consume guides Locke towards a different choice of government. Impelled by these two bonding forces, Locke promotes a more democratic rule based on sovereignty of the people. Locke calls for a government with limited powers. Because men will look out for each other in order to maintain peace , it is safe for them to have a government of self-rule with little government intervention in their daily lives. In contrast to a Hobbesian with one supreme sovereign as judge and jury, Locke supports the idea of citizens deciding their peers punishments in proportion to the level of their crime. Humanity's sense of reason would inherently pursue peace. For Locke the only government intervention would be in defense of private property. For Locke the only government intervention would be to defend private property from foreign or domestic aggressors. Otherwise his sovereign would have little to do. The governments suggested by both men have different purposes, a result of the differences of opinions as to the state of nature. These differences, it could be argued, are
a result of the men's backgrounds, as well as the time periods in which they lived, and the ruling governments in their respective countries. Locke, who has a more religious background, cites biblical figures and ideas throughout the Second Treatise. This leads to a state of nature that is inherently good, almost utopian, with the exception certain selfish tendencies. Locke's state of nature would have to deteriorate greatly to become Hobbes'. With this peaceful state of nature, Locke can allow for a government largely based on faith and trust. Hobbes, however, writes during a time of turmoil, as the English monarchy is overthrown for the commonwealth of Oliver Cromwell. With these facts in mind, Hobbes describes a savage state of nature founded upon self-interest and violence, one in which it is almost more beneficial not to be a social animal, in order not to offend one's peers. Hobbes thus supports a strong governments with sufficient power to impose tranquility on a violent landscape, disliking the current government which it could be said emerged because of one man's desire for power, and the former and future governments, which had maintained domestic stability for so long. Although neither is fully right, both men had a profound influence on the form of future governments. Hobbes' idea that reason allows for foresight by learning from the past, coupled with Locke's belief in democratic principles and limited government, blazed a trail for the constitutionally based governments of the United States and France.