Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, published in 1651, initially pioneered many of the foundational concepts of Social Contract Theory which frames political philosophy to this day. However, while Hobbes’ broad framework of governance arising from a mutually beneficial association of individuals remains popular, many of the specific features of his characterization of government have been disputed. One such significant author who has diverged greatly from Hobbes while remaining a social contract theorist is John Locke who published his take on the social contract theory through his book, “Two Treatises of Government”, in 1689. Hobbes’ theory of governance was distinctly secular and was predicated upon fear of the horrors of his state of nature, thereby empowering government through almost any means necessary as the alternative to this state of nature. Locke, on the other hand, builds his theory off of divine and natural laws and rights justifying a minimalist government, and contrasts government to a much milder state of nature than Hobbes. This article will then be a comparative of their different philosophies and their subsequent characterizations of the state of nature and governance.
It is worthwhile to first consider what both authors thought of our “natural rights” or what we are entitled to even without government. Hobbes believed that “naturally every man has right to everything”[1] that given no reason to stop ourselves from selfishness in the state of nature we are entitled to act selfishly, particularly in response to others’ selfishness. On the other hand, Locke believes that by virtue of all humans being created in God’s image all humans have inalienable rights, particularly to their bodies, their liberty, and their property. These three natural rights are fundamental to Locke’s political philosophy. These differing natural rights become important when we consider the authors’ beliefs on the “state of nature” – what a world without government looks like. Hobbes is famous for his characterization life in the state of nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”, and this follows from everybody acting selfishly according to their “right to everything”. This constant selfishness leads to everyone being in a constant “state of war” against each other. In turn, Hobbes describes government as a necessity to escape this perpetual horrific conflict. Locke has a much more optimistic characterization of the state of nature, positing that – for the most part – individuals would recognize and respect others’ natural rights. If a person violates another’s rights – for example, they steal, enslave, or harm them – then individuals are permitted to proportionately punish the violator. However, Locke recognizes that while this punishment is justifiable, it may lead to a desire for revenge from the punished which then may spark a cycle of violence which Locke calls the “state of war”[2]. Locke invokes government as the means through which we arbitrate over such disputes to prevent entrance into the state of war.
Noticeably, the alternatives to government are starkly different between these two authors – with Hobbes’ characterization being far more pessimistic than Locke, who is much less concerned about the alternative state of nature. These differences in their beliefs of the state of nature give rise to differences in their outline of the appropriate powers, extents, and limitations of government.
Hobbes in particular is an advocate of an empowered, absolutist government. He believed that its authority should be unchecked as any attempts to limit governments power, in turn, empowers criticism against it and potential for rebellion. After their initial accession to the social contract, individuals have no more option but to obey government in the fullest, up until the point that their immediate life is threatened. His primary motivation for this is his fear of the severity of the state of nature. Locke on the other hand is an advocate for a minimalist government. The functions of government, according to Locke, are to safeguard individuals’ natural rights to property, health, and freedom through adjudicating over cases where people violate others’ rights to their own property, health, and freedoms. Locke’s beliefs on the importance of individual freedoms as a fundamental right of individuals made him skeptical of more overreaching forms of government. Diverging completely from Hobbes, Locke even outlines the basis upon which revolt against a government is justified: In the case that a government is “illegitimate” and actively violates the rights of its citizens, it is just and fair for citizens to overthrow the government. To Hobbes, the strife caused by such a civil war alongside the dangers of the state of nature make such an option untenable.
A final distinction between Locke and Hobbes lies within their views on what legitimizes the authority of government, and its connection to the concepts of natural law. Both philosophers posited that there were rules for communally desirable behavior that we could derive a priori, though they disagreed on those beliefs. Hobbes’ “natural law” is that all individuals should want peace and be willing to put aside their immediate selfish wants to achieve such peace. This draws from his characterization of the state of nature and is portrayed by him as a rationally motivated means to justify government – one that is built merely upon our ability to observe that it is better for us to participate. Locke on the other hand’s natural law is merely that his natural rights should never be violated by others. He posits that scripture supports this and therefore that these natural laws are God given reasons to accept government as legitimate. While the primary work the theistic concepts are doing in Locke’s conception is motivating that individuals have inalienable rights, in Locke’s original writings at least he therefore builds government upon a religious framework, unlike Hobbes’ secular framework.
Ultimately, the simplest lens to view the differences between Hobbes and Locke are through their optimism about the human condition: Hobbes believes that humans are inherently selfish, while Locke believes that humans are mostly capable of recognizing and respecting each other’s rights even without government. This pessimism makes Hobbes want a stronger form of government to prevent return to his worrisome state of nature, while Locke’s optimism makes him want a minimalist government which respects our natural rights. Locke’s philosophy would ultimately go on to, for example, profoundly influence the writers of the USA’s constitution, but it was Hobbes who laid the groundwork for the social contract theory that Locke built upon. Both then continue as giants in the canon of modern political philosophy.
Footnotes
[1] From Leviathan XIV
[2] From The Second Treatise of Government III “Of the State of War”
Sources Used
Hobbes, Thomas. 1651a. Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiasticall and Civil. Andrew Crooke.
Cohen, G. A. 2013. Lectures on the History of Moral and Political Philosophy. In Lectures on the History of Moral and Political Philosophy, Course Book. Princeton University Press.
Lloyd, Sharon A., and Susanne Sreedhar. 2022. “Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2022, edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/hobbes-moral/.
Locke, John, 1632-1704. 1948. The Second Treatise of Civil Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration. Oxford : B. Blackwell, 1948. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/9910095262102121.
Tuckness, Alex. 2024. “Locke’s Political Philosophy.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2024, edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/locke-political/.