Locke presents an idyllic picture of the SON, where men are free to do as they wish without being subject to anyone’s authority. Everyone is equal, since we belong to the “same species and status” with the “same advantages of nature” and the “same abilities.”[1] However, there are limits to this freedom. Even in the SON, we are limited by the laws of nature. These laws have two sources, reason and God. Reason tells us that because we are equal, we need to act in such a way that we do not harm others since we do not ourselves wish to be harmed, in an innate spirit of reciprocity. Because we are God’s creation, we need to preserve our lives. The way to do so is to try to live peacefully with other people.
Hobbes too posits the equality of men, but with different outcomes. Because we are equal, we equally hope to achieve our goals, leading to competition, enmity and distrust, resulting in “a war of every man against every man”.[2] Self-preservation, “survival,”[3] is also the principal force for why man act in such a way for Hobbes. People employ their reason to survive which explains, for instance, why they may “strike first.”[4] However, while justice may be served in Locke’s SON because natural law is already present, the concept of justice does not yet exist in Hobbes’s SON. “Force and fraud”[5] are what preserves each person in such a world.
So far, what is common between the people in both SONs are the need for self-preservation, their intrinsic equality and use of reason. Yet, in Locke’s SON, there is peace and justice, while in Hobbes’s, neither. However, Locke’s peace will not hold. Clearly, man is fallible since otherwise, there would be no need for law at all. In Locke’s SON, once a wrong befalls another, both parties are in a state of war (SOW). The wrongdoer faces the potential wrath of all mankind, since he broke the laws of nature, abandoning the rule of reason for the rule of force. This gives everyone the right to punish him, as it is “an offence against the whole human species”[6] since everyone has a duty to preserve mankind, unless it threatens their own survival. The punishment ought to be severe enough to “make it a bad bargain for the offender, to give him reason to repent, and to terrify others from offending in the same way.”[7] However, because people will be biased when judging their own cases or those related to their friends, and too harsh when punishing others, a third party is required.
For Hobbes, this third party is a sovereign, who simply by merit of his position can do no wrong, in a kind of ‘sovereign infallibility’ and is hence eminently suited to judge everyone else. This sovereign will have absolute power, exerting “coercive power to compel all men equally to perform their covenants, through the terror of some punishment.”[8] Locke’s solution is a civil government with impartial magistrates to administer the positive law, which derives from natural, God-given law. Both call their new state of affairs a commonwealth,[9] but both are critically different. For Locke, a Hobbesian leviathan as ruler would be even worse than being in the SON. He argues:
[A] government where one man – and remember that absolute monarchs are only men! – commands a multitude, is free to be the judge in his own case, and can do what he likes to all his subjects, with no-one being allowed to question or control those who carry out his wishes, and everyone having to put up with whatever he does, whether he is led by reason, mistake or passion. How much better it is in the state of nature, where no man is obliged to submit to the unjust will of someone else, and someone who judges wrongly […] is answerable for that to the rest of mankind![10]
Conclusion
Is Locke a Hobbesian? Their theories begin with similar presuppositions, such as man’s need for self-preservation, their equality and use of reason. While Hobbes’s SON is a SOW almost from the start, there is an air of inevitability for Locke’s SON to ultimately also degenerate into a SOW. Locke clearly does not like the idea of one man ruling over all as the law unto himself. His solution is a civil government which is subject to the rule of law and which can be overthrown should it fail to deliver. Yet Lockean law derives from reason, the same way Hobbes’s 19 laws of nature[11] are also “discovered by reason.”[12] Why do their conclusions differ? Published in 1651, Hobbes’s Leviathan was a response to the turmoil of the English Civil War which began in 1642, creating a longing in Hobbes for stability and a nostalgia for a monarchy. Locke’s Two Treatises published in 1689 was also a reaction to the politics of his time against the restored monarchy in favour of a constitutional government.[13] Their ideas on the ideal government were shaped by their differing historical circumstances. While it could be argued that there is a type of dialectical progress in favour of liberal and pluralistic values, history continues to unfold. The verdict of what is universally best is still undecided. Perhaps it is undecidable, since each society may require different solutions at different points of time, which is why Hobbes and Locke with their different ideal governments still remain relevant for contemporary political thought.
Bibliography
Ayers, Michael. “Locke, John (1632–1704).” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1st ed. London: Routledge, 2016. doi: 10.4324/9780415249126-DA054-1.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited by Jonathan Bennett, 2004. https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/hobbes1651part1.pdf.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Edited by Jonathan Bennett, 2005. https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/locke1689a.pdf.
Wordcount: 994
[1] John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, ed. Jonathan Bennett, 2005, par. 4, https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/locke1689a.pdf.
[2] Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. Jonathan Bennett, 2004, 57, https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/hobbes1651part1.pdf.
[3] Ibid., 56.
[4] Ibid., 57.
[5] Ibid., 58.
[6] Locke, Second Treatise, par. 8.
[7] Ibid., par. 12.
[8] Hobbes, Leviathan, 66.
[9] Locke, Second Treatise, par. 12.
[10] Ibid., par. 13.
[11] Hobbes, Leviathan, chaps. 14–15.
[12] Ibid., 59.
[13] Michael Ayers, “Locke, John (1632–1704),” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1st ed. (London: Routledge, 2016), doi: 10.4324/9780415249126-DA054-1.
No comments:
Post a Comment