These philosophers were both considered as social contract theory developers, and both defending natural law theories, as well.
Starting with Locke, his theory about society has its roots in the natural law, and his arguments all follow the notion of the rights that are entitled to each individual – freedom, the right of equality, and also independence. His state of nature is anarchic and individualist. In Locke’s indirect point of view, Hobbes fails to make a correct distinction between what is the state of nature and what is the state of war. He also does not simply posit man in nature as a thought experiment, as does Hobbes, but he does suggest that, historically, many have lived in such a state. In Locke’s distinction between nature and war, he defends that only an initiation or use of force constitutes a state of war, which means that a state of nature is possible to exist in peace. While Hobbes has described man has having a primarily amoral nature, Locke actually states the opposite.
The reasons that Locke sees for man to want to leave the ideal peaceful state of nature, of freedom and also equality have to do with the “inconveniences” that most rational people experience: the costs that come from lack of knowledge about certain laws and absence of an adjudicator that would be impartial; not having a law enforcement that serves as ultimate power that may allow for the strongest of the groups to be able to execute what they want; and the difficulty in general of the agent to judge law in an impartial way.
Regarding what Locke believes, the purpose that civil society serves is not of the governed to have direct guidance in ways that they survive and/or flourish, as Hobbes would advocate. Even though the survival and the propagation are the outcomes that one prefers, the government’s function would be of, specifically, provide an organized framework that protects life, liberty, and also property. Locke’s view, summarized, is of a minimal state, whose justification has to have consent that should be total from the governed.
Hobbes, on the other hand, has a moral philosophy that can be characterized as ethical egoistic. This means that he states that one is obliged to do whatever is in one’s self-interest, individually. He suggests, consequently, that humans are often short-sighted in what concerns their decisions, they are self-deceptive about the motives, and unreliable when it comes to rationally determine actions that act in their interests. Generally speaking, even acting in one’s self-interest, not always these decisions act in a full fulfillment of what is best.
According to what Hobbes defends, the state of nature is present with absence of authority and all men are defined as (more or less) equal. Even being some stronger (or smarter) than others, everyone is susceptible of being killed by the hands of others, whether it is by deception, or unison, etc. Since he believes men are egoistic and, therefore, will do what acts in their interest, this means that mankind lives in a state of war against one another, being peaceful cooperation impossible without the power of an absolute authority. Because mankind competes violently for subsistence or for desire of other material; lives fearfully and will challenge others to ensure personal safety, and seeks reputation, using first violence, so that others won’t challenge them, there is no security; it will be in constant war. Thus, Hobbes defends the moral rightness of existence of an absolute sovereign to avoid the state of nature of constant war. He believes that society should answer before this absolute authority that will have the right of judgment, giving up their rights in their own benefit.
Regarding the two types of society presented by these theorists, Locke’s social view seems to be the more favorable one from the two, since it allows people to express themselves and does not entitle anyone to use the force and authority to make the community obey to what one single person (who is also probable to have her own weaknesses and subjective issues to influence negatively her final decisions) thinks it’s best. Community organization and function should, in fact come from joint decisions and mutual agreement from all parties involved.
As for an opinion point of view, both theories seem to be extremists and neither, per se, is more convincing. While Locke’s point of view of how society should be organized and minimally controlled by the government seems to lack guidance, and have a too lose approach, not sufficient for things to work properly inside a community, Hobbes’ point of view is far too restrictive and strips out of people the very basic rights they have to express themselves and have an opinion and saying about things and decisions. Thus, society should be organized democratically, combining people who are seen as the fittest to think about what would be best for the community, who would, then, have a saying about these ideas, for joint decisions.
References
Diem, Gordon Neal. “Locke, Hobbes and the Free Nation”. Formulation, 1998. Web. 7th May 2013.
Khawand, Christopher. “Locke vs. Hobbes, Nature, and Civil Society”. Philpropsophy – Philosophy Articles and Article Summaries, November 22nd 2007. Web. 7th May 2013.
