This paper will try to compare and evaluate both arguments made by Hobbes and Locke in their attempts to justify the government. Both philosophers, although almost lived in the same era, have different views and arguments. They both have a different state of nature, and they both argue differently on the motives to move out of the state of nature. The paper will first give a summery of the general form of the social contract argument. This will be followed by a discussion for both philosophers’ arguments. Finally the paper will attempt to evaluate both philosophers’ theories and their supporting arguments.
“State of Nature” is a term in political philosophy used in social contract theories to describe the hypothetical condition of humanity before the state's foundation and its monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. In a broader sense of the word, a state of nature is the condition before the rule of positive law comes into being, thus being a synonym of anarchy.
Social Contract - denotes an implicit agreement within a state regarding the rights and responsibilities of the state and its citizens, or more generally a similar concord between a group and its members, or between individuals. All members within a society are assumed to agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within the society without violating the contract; such violation would signify a problematic attempt to return to the state of nature. It has been often noted, indeed, that social contract theories relied on a specific anthropological conception of man as either "good" or "evil".
This is the general concept of the hypothetical “State of Nature.” Each philosopher that believed in the Social Contract theory has a different vision of the hypothetical situation, and thus has a different way of moving out of the state of nature. Certainly, that leads to different conclusion, a different state. Hobbes has a unique state of nature that leads him to a monarchy rule. His state of nature is a state of war of all against all.
“Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition that is called war; and such a war is of every man, against every man. For war is consisteth not in battle only, or in the act of fighting; but in tract of time: wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known.” (Hobbes P119)
Hobbes argues as well that in the state of nature people are Free, rational, and knowledgeable. He first distinguishes between two different types of human acts- Acts of will and reflexive acts. Acts of well are deliberative acts, which aim at maximizing our personal gains, therefore people in the state of nature are self interested. Because we all are self interested in our personal gains, and because we all desire and aspire similar thing that are limited in the society, the state of nature will be very competitive. Because of the competition, each person poses a threat to the other. That is, one’s security is someone else’s elimination. That is why the state of nature is a state of war of all against all.
There were important events that resulted in Hobbes’ progressive views. The most important event that took place between Machiavelli and Hobbes was the Reformation of the Church. Luther rejected salvation by works but rather by faith, which meant that church is not essential, only personal relationship with God are irrelevant. Individuals rather than church hold power to influence the future. Another important reason for Hobbes’ views is the wars of his time.
1- French Ware of religion.
2. The Revolt of the Netherlands.
3. The Thirty Years Wars in HRE.
4. English civil War.
Hobbes then argues that when the people start to move out of the state of nature, they would choose Monarchy- An absolute rule that will insure the safety of the system. Although the laws of nature require that human beings seek peace, and ma