Related questions:
- What are the essential differences between Thomas Hobbes and John Locke concerning life in the hypothetical state of nature? How did the differences influence their conception of civil society?
- Briefly discuss the social contract theory as one of the theories of the origin of civil society.
(YOUR INTRODUCTION)
THOMAS HOBBES AND JOHN LOCKE: POLITICAL PHILOSOPHERS OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
The concept of social contract is and has been used to evaluate the political relationship between leaders and rulers over the ages. Two major authorities that go side by side regarding the social contract theory are ‘’Thomas Hobbes’’ and ‘’John Locke’’. Talking about the social contract, both these philosophers presented a hypothetical (imaginary) account of a pre-political era, which they referred to as, the state of nature. Basically, the underlying element of their hypothesized ‘’state of nature’’ was their metaphysical orientation and conception of man i.e. what they believed and thought man is. Generally, the idea of the social contract is an arranged agreement whereby the ruled and the ruler activate a covenant as to how the state affairs should be run. These social contract theories form the foundation of ideas regarding the origin of civil society.
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF BOTH PHILOSOPHERS IDEAS
In order to successfully carry out an analysis of both philosophers ideas, a particular order would ensue, which is;
· Their conceptions on the nature of man.
· Their hypothesis on the state of nature.
· Their conceptions of civil human society.
· Their justifications of the social contract.
THEIR CONCEPTIONS ON THE NATURE OF MAN
Ø Thomas Hobbes
Understanding Hobbes’ ideal of the state of nature begins with comprehending his conception of man. Hobbes viewed man as an egoistic and selfish being. Although he did not specifically deny that man had any sort of ability for rationalism, he however emphasized that man’s desires overshadowed his rationality. The resulting effect was that, man always sought to discover the most efficient means of satisfying his desires, even if it was by hook or crook. So, man according to Hobbes is a competitor for riches, honor, power, and command; and to achieve this, he is destined to become strifeful, warlike, envious and anything which would aid him in attaining to his desires.
Ø John Locke
Like Hobbes, understanding Locke’s conception of man would pave the way to comprehending his ideal on the state of nature. For Locke, man is a rational being. Hence, all human beings (excluding children and the mentally ill) have reasoning power and are equal. In other words, man is a being that is ruled by his rationality; he surely has desires but he does not allow these desires to overrule his rationality. So, man is a being who critically considers every decision which he wants to embark on before doing it.
THEIR HYPOTHESIS ON THE STATE OF NATURE
Ø Thomas Hobbes
Accordingly, the pre-political era or state of nature, as presented by Hobbes was an era of strife and hostility. It was a time of each against all, man against man, and an insecure environment. Hobbes described the life of man during this era as, solitary (lonely), poor, nasty, brutish (harsh) and short. Like Thrasymachus, it was a time when justice was the interest of the strong, for might is right. Good and bad, virtue and vice, right and wrong became subjective and deterministic, according to the trend of the individual. This is a brief picture of Hobbes state of nature.
Ø John Locke
The hypothesized state of nature as presented by Locke was a peaceful era; a blissful haven state where man lived in solitude and community, guided by reason. It was not a state where man lived in perpetual fear of death and threat of life. Life was not strifeful in any way for man applied his rationality to every single action and activity he got involved in. But, according to Locke, the only thing which served as a potential threat to life in the state of nature was the insecurity of property. Locke explained that property in the state of nature was common, given the fact that everyone had a right to draw a source of living from the natural provision which life had to offer, as long as man was ready to exert some labor of his body to extract what he wanted from nature. But, since there was no formal legal organization within society, there was a potential threat to life and property as man’s rationality could fail him at any point in time; his desires could overtake him and make him want to take what does not belong to him.
THEIR CONCEPTIONS OF CIVIL HUMAN SOCIETY
Ø Thomas Hobbes
The point at which Hobbes’ state of nature influences his conception of civil society is in its relevance regarding ‘’self preservation’’. As it were, the basic need of man in the state of nature was that of self-preservation. The desire to live a sweet, long and fulfilling life was so strong on every individual in the state of nature. Indeed, it is a natural desire that human life should be preserved, as long as it can, for that is part of its essence. Human life really makes no sense if it were so solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Thus, there was a dire need for the social contract to intervene, by instituting an environment in which self-preservation can be attained.
Ø John Locke
Furthermore, the point at which Locke’s state of nature becomes crucial in his conception of civil society is in its relevance in the efficient institution of legal structures to ensure the security of property. The only defect of the state of nature was mainly based on the fact that it had no organization, written law and fixed penalties to give effect to the natural rules of right. Hence, in order for man to ensure that there was security of property in the state, he had to abandon his havenly natural condition and by contract surrender part of his liberty to a sovereign power that would ensure that human personal entitlements were rightly protected, thus ensuring a more secure life.
THEIR JUSTIFICATIONS OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
Ø Thomas Hobbes
In order to achieve this, Hobbes postulated that man in the strifeful state of nature collectively and desperately had to come into agreement to institute in place an ‘’absolute’’ government, which will oversee the affairs of the state. This absolute power would become a ‘’leviathan’’ that possesses the sovereignty to effectively curb the excesses of man and tame man as it were. Also this sovereign power had to be above the law to efficiently enforce same. This was to ensure peace, order and progress for all citizens. In other words, Hobbes used the doctrine of the social contract to justify authoritarian government as well as absolutism. This follows, as the idea of the state of nature was all imaginary.
Ø John Locke
In order for man in the state of nature to secure a safe state where security of property was priority, they decided to undertake a social contract. This contract entailed that the people gave up a part of their autonomy to a power that was meant to use his leadership office to institute structures in place whereby there could be security of property which was the very element the previous state of nature lacked. In other words, this power had an obligation to be responsible to the people, as he was not above the law, although he was the one to institute it. In any case whereby there was a breach of contract, the people had every right to undertake a revolution to overthrow the tyrannous power.
FINAL SUMMARY
The absolute Hobbesian idea of the social contract was ‘’monarchical’’ in nature while the constitutional Lockeian idea of the social contract was ‘’democratic’’ in nature. Accordingly, it is their conception on the nature of man and the environmental condition of society as well, that determined the social contract doctrine to be applied, be it ‘’absolutism’’ or ‘’limited constitutionalism’’.
(YOUR CRITICISMS AND CONCLUSION)
