Strength in Numbers: Hobbes v Locke

X Article

X Highlight

Google Doc

Strength in Numbers: Hobbes v Locke

Deciphering between two of humanity’s best-known thinkers and, with coherent premises, reaching a conclusion as to which person holds the superior set of ideals in the context of the modern world, helps refine our collective human perspective. In this essay, I will compare and contrast Thomas Hobbes and John Locke’s understanding of justice, analyze the similarities and differences of their beliefs, look at how they would advise differently regarding the contemporary problem of individual power in government, and ultimately reason why Locke holds the superior position. While Locke and Hobbes both agree that humans must enter a social contract for the benefit of society, Locke’s vision on the state of nature was much more generous than that of Hobbes, which led Locke to favorably argue the importance of the majority consent of the governed when establishing a society.

Thomas Hobbes holds a rather pessimistic point of view on the state of nature and consequently human nature, as he believes that humans are primal beings governed by self-interest and prone to war. Hobbes simply believes justice is the keeping of covenants, deeming that a state is legit when it fulfills its one function: it’s the product of a social compact which generates a ruler capable of keeping power and who makes our lives better than they would be in the state of nature. He thinks humans, in order to avoid the inevitability of conflict in the state of nature, need a sovereign or supreme ruler, in order to take them out of this hellscape. Hobbes justifies his argument for a sovereign as he reasons “the only way to erect the common power needed to maintain peace and security is through a covenant in which men confer all their power and strength upon one man and submit their wills to his will and their judgment to his judgment” (Leviathan Selection, pg 222). Hobbes has an extremely low bar on his qualifications for a sovereign, as he essentially believes this person's sole purpose is to ‘keep its subjects from dying’. By this token, Hobbes thinks justice is of secondary concern so long as the sovereign avoids war. Hobbes stresses the idea that the sovereign must exist outside the social contracts of the masses and must hold supreme power to the point that he (or she) is 'unchallengeable’ in order to ensure stability and prevent chaos.

On the other hand, John Locke believes justice is based on the idea of a social contract and the natural rights of life, liberty and (with emphasis) property. Locke had a more lenient perspective regarding the state of nature as he believes we are, at our core, rational beings rather than primal beasts. He views this state as one of peace and goodwill in which people are bound by the laws of nature not to harm one another’s innate rights. These fundamental beliefs are well described in the beginning of his Second Treatise of Government, “political power then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community … All this only for the common good” (Locke Selection, pg 243). Locke’s emphasis on property as a universal right is best demonstrated by his Labor Theory of Property, which articulates that labor is the original source of property and that one's property equates to their wealth. The 3 limitations he places on this theory are that of sufficiency (there's not enough property to go around), spoilage (one can only have so much property) and labor (one is only entitled to the properties that they labored themselves + there’s not enough labor to go around to meet the demands of everyone’s property wishes). Aside from these naturally born rights, the main premise of the social contract theory is that the legitimacy of authority derives from the majority consent of the governed.

Before nitpicking the differences between the two, it’s important to recognize that they actually tend to agree more fundamentally than they disagree as they both believe in the necessity of a social contract, the state of nature as a starting point, and natural rights within the state of nature. Both philosophers concur that a social contract where individuals voluntarily agree to form a government allows for the protection of their rights and increases order in society. Additionally, although they have varying descriptions for the state of nature and emphasize different aspects of natural rights, they both believe that the state of nature is a necessary starting point for understanding the need for government and acknowledge the existence of natural rights that individuals possess in this state.

The primary difference between these two extraordinarily influential philosophers revolves around their subjective views on human nature and thus the state of nature. As per all of the ‘big questions’ philosophy seeks to answer, there is no empirical evidence or mathematical formula that can be used to determine whether Hobbes’ pessimistic, critical definition of the state of nature is more or less accurate than Locke’s optimistic, potentially naive definition. Ultimately, Hobbes’ perspective can be reduced to the belief that humans are competitive, self-interested, war-driven animals in dire need of a simple-yet-effective state: one supreme ruler. Comparatively, Locke rests his philosophies on the notion that humans are rational beings with higher levels of consciousness and deserve to determine their own state through the majority consent of the governed. Although there’s no concrete evidence, John Stuart Mill’s notion of higher and lower pleasures lends itself to Locke’s perspective as it identifies that humans are capable of profound mental pleasures and that we prefer these higher level pleasures to the bodily lower level pleasures that other animals also experience. Both Hobbes & Locke believe in natural rights within their respective states of natures but they vary greatly; contrasting Locke’s life (every person has a right to protect their own life and people should not harm or kill one other), liberty (people have the right to make decisions about their own lives and pursue their own interests) and property (the right to acquire and possess property though labor and efforts), Hobbes believes in the natural right of self preservation. This right essentially translates to doing whatever is necessary in order to survive which inevitably leads to his aforementioned chaotic and dangerous state of nature. Additionally, Hobbes contends that once people willingly enter a social contract, they forfeit their rights to their absolute sovereign in order for security and protection from the chaos inherent in the state of nature. Lastly, they differ in their belief regarding the validity of the right to revolt; while Hobbes thinks that rebellion is unjustifiable as it would lead to a return to the tumultuous state of nature, Locke believes that if a government fails to protect citizens’ rights or becomes tyrannical, the people have the right to revolt and establish a new government.

Individuals' power in government has long been a topic of debate, but this controversy has been magnified in the modern era as politicians have often used their political platforms and insider knowledge to benefit financially and amass more unofficial yet effective power. In response to determining an individual’s power in the government, Hobbes would contend that an individual should assume as much power as they possibly can. Similar to Machiavelli’s notion of virtù (pride, bravery, skill, forcefulness and an amount of ruthlessness coupled with the willingness to do evil when necessary), he doesn’t think one should limit the amount of authority they can have and doesn’t believe this process of usurping authority needs to be legally sanctioned. Conversely, based on his central belief of consent of the governed, Locke would say that the majority should determine the set of rules in society and that any action that doesn't adhere to these rules is unjust. Hobbes’ position on individual power is consistent with his belief of a strong, unchallengeable sovereign existing outside the confines of the masses. He’d argue consolidating power, even if it means bypassing established laws and norms, would ensure stability by concentrating power in the hands of a single, authoritative ruler rather than dispersing it among multiple competing factions. On the contrary, Locke understands that individual power in the government should be derived from the will of the people and that the role of the state is to protect and serve the natural rights of its citizens, not to flout these very rules.

This contemporary problem of individual power in the government is exemplified in the context of 97 members of the US congress who “reported trades in companies influenced by their committee” (New York Times). Just last year, some mainstream media sources finally published what many already knew – government officials commit insider trading regularly. Although many politicians find loopholes in the system, like acting through the stock accounts of their spouse, it’s fairly clear that many state officials have engaged in insider trading. Hobbes would articulate that these politicians displayed virtù and successfully capitalized on their ability to engage in de facto rule. Contrarily, Hobbes is of the philosophy of de jure rule as he believes that any deviation from the agreed upon set of laws (such as insider trading) established by the majority, is not permissible.

Finally, there are a number of reasons as to why Locke’s set of ideals are superior to Hobbes's commonly flawed rationale – especially in the context of the modern era. Firstly, Hobbes trusts a single sovereign to use their strength for the peace and common defense of the people. One of the powers of the sovereign he identifies, is NOT being able to cause injustice because they exist outside the realms of the social contract and are unchallengeable. Even in the fantasy world of Thomas Hobbes, if a human being somehow was able to meet the impossible criteria of being completely uninfluenced by others and unable to have their power contended, they would still be abundantly capable of causing injustice as their decisions are absolute. In any state with one singular supreme ruler, they are, at all times, capable of instituting systems of oppression, initiating deadly and unnecessary wars, etc. Aside from the inarguable fact that a supreme ruler has the potential to cause injustice to its subjects, Hobbes presents a false reality under his definition of a sovereign as no human being is able to be completely ‘unchallengeable’ considering no one is truly outside the constraints of any social contract, and all humans are easily influenced by each other. While Hobbes would argue that injustices within a state are better than the perpetual war-like state of nature, his argument is extremely simplistic and entirely predicated on his subjective belief on human nature. Hobbes neglects the reality that there are much better ways to form a civilized society than merely picking one person to be an ultimate ruler with absolute control and consequently placing the fate of all citizens in the hands of one human. Comparatively, Locke's perspective supports a more democratic and inclusive form of governance, in which power is distributed among various branches and levels of government, and decision-making authority is derived from the collective will of the people. This system of checks and balances is of utmost importance in ensuring the rights of citizens, especially in the context of the modern era. Today, there are many nations that serve as support to this concept on both ends, but a prime example of a nation who abides by the rule of a sovereign is North Korea – a tyrannical country led by sociopath Kim Jong-un in which citizens essentially have no rights or autonomy, nor even the right to revolt according to Hobbes. While Hobbes’ theory of a sovereign could be effective in his perfect world, in reality allowing one person to have unchecked power is the easiest way to suppress individual rights due to the sovereign’s innate lack of accountability.

Locke’s emphasis on protecting natural rights through the majority consent of the governed reigns because the collective interest of society will always be more valuable than the interest of one individual. We must recognize that, as human beings, our strength is in numbers. As I wrote this paper and tried to think about all the ways Hobbes could possibly have the better overall argument, I could not reach any solutions because ultimately collaboration allows for better ideas, a more nuanced perspective and a deeper understanding of reality than one person could ever have alone. In an academic group project, how much of a better result would a group of 10 people produce compared to just 1? How much quicker would man have stepped on the moon if Russia and the US collaborated rather than raced? Lastly, and most importantly, how much more effective would a state be if it was governed by the collective consciousness of all of its citizens rather than just one person?

Works Cited

Hobbes, T. (2008). Leviathan (J. C. A. Gaskin, Ed.). Oxford University Press.

Locke, J. (1980). Second Treatise of Government (C. B. Macpherson, Ed.). Hackett Publishing Company.

Parlapiano, A., Playford, A., Kelly, K., & Uz, E. (2022, September 13). These 97 members of Congress reported trades in companies influenced by their committees. The New York Times. Retrieved May 1, 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/13/us/politics/congress-members-stock-trading-list.html