Comparing Hobbes And Locke's Power In Relation To Society

Superior Essays
Hobbes and Locke find themselves at a standoff upon the question of the benefits surrounding absolute sovereign power in relation to society. Hobbes argues against Locke that absolute sovereign powers will rule without malevolence toward their subjects, and power should not be spread beyond one person. He says the idea of sovereign power being “divided” (Leviathan, 29:12) “against the essence of the commonwealth” (29:12) since “powers divided mutually destroy one another” (29:12). Division goes against Hobbes’ definition of a commonwealth – where creating power to defend people and their property “is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices unto …show more content…
Hobbes’ state of nature is not peaceful the way English civil society is for Locke. One must keep in mind that, Locke grounds this claim about the state of nature not being as violent as it is for Hobbes in a claim about human nature, reason, and temperament itself. Locke believes that an ability to perceive and follow natural law is universal, even in a state of nature. A transition to a sovereign state is necessary to integrate interpretation and enforcement of natural law. Hobbes claims people are naturally more passionate and selfish in an immediate, material sense, more afraid of physical harm and thus motivating striking first. Hobbes might make empirical or historical arguments, like this estimate of murder rates since the Middle …show more content…
While monarchs put down rebellions by peasants and aristocrats alike, for Hobbes this is expected, and is both good and right. Hobbes can point to Locke’s state of nature where people are not really prevented from forming first local and then provincial coalitions to rob and pillage their neighbors at ever-increasing range. What prevents bands of marauders from taking whatever they want by force? The psychological insecurity of wondering when such a band will arrive at one’s village is exactly the state of mind Hobbes means in his version of state of nature. Hobbes says that is why we need kings, to ensure alleviating constant fear. Locke’s claim such disorder will not happen is doubtful, more than Hobbes’ claim kings will rule benevolently. For Hobbes, the risk of kingly tyranny compares to the rare onslaught by a mythical creature, versus constant assault from numerous threats in a state of nature. Notice the way when Locke frames this issue in comparing his stance to Hobbes, his language implies that a just will against another unjust will in a state of nature will somehow be one-on-one: “men are not bound to submit to the unjust will of another: And if he that judges, judges amiss in his own, or any other case, he is answerable for it to the rest of mankind” (Second Treatise 213). Even if for Locke I am not bound morally to submit to the unjust will of a new band of marauders, (on Hobbes’ naturalistic

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    It is due to man’s tendency to compete, act diffident and seek glory in his natural state that this state often leads to war , more so without a common power to keep men in place . One can argue that Hobbes over-emphasizes the dreadfulness of the state of nature to prove that rational individuals are willing to relinquish certain liberties to obtain the security provided by a Commonwealth, be it one with absolute power. His pessimistic view on people in the state of nature is contrary to that of Locke, who believes that subjects are equal in the state of nature not because anyone is capable of killing anyone, rather because no one is subject to any higher…

    • 1217 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes, in contrast, was pessimistic and believed that men are naturally selfish and are always looking out for just themselves. Locke also did not agree with Hobbes that man needs to give up complete control of himself to the government. Hobbes believed that the government needs to be in control so that men could be protected from each other. Locke believed that a government needs to be in control so that men could protect their natural rights. More differed from both Locke and Hobbes in that he was motivated by religious…

    • 849 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The natural inability for a leader to simultaneously act in a morally pure manner and preside over successful governance leads Machiavelli to advise that the Prince must embody duplicity and deviousness in order to triumph. Machiavelli vehemently states that incorruptible leaders who exclusively promote righteousness leave themselves vulnerable to subversion by cunning forces, which is against the interests of the ruler and the state. Importantly, Machiavelli states that the ability for leaders to achieve glory and virtù is enhanced if leaders are unshackled from commitments of upholding moral values. In arguing that the Prince should learn how ‘not to be good’, Machiavelli is not insisting that it is acceptable for a leader to be reprehensibly…

    • 1857 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    For example, it is considered more crucial to satisfy the needs of the majority, instead of considering every single person in different circumstances. Critics suggest utilitarianism has an inadequate protection of rights due to the constant changes in society and claim everything cannot be measured only by the same standard and assessment of only satisfaction. However, theorists upholding this concept highlight satisfying every person’s needs is not possible. They insisted efficiency will result from decisions based on the majority’s choice on how they would like to be governed and live. Jeremy Bentham supported this notion by stating government cannot meet all the demands placed by the doctrine of natural rights.…

    • 1580 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Because he believes man becomes disloyal to the state when times are tough, and the ultimate purpose of the Prince is to maintain order within the state, Machiavelli argues a ruler should be feared. If the prince is loved and circumstances warrant, people are more prone to take advantage of the benevolence of their ruler. Ruling with an iron fist, Machiavelli believes, would ensure obedience from the ruled. Moreover, he does also warn of the dangers of using fear in a negative manner. Never in The Prince does Machiavelli advocate using cruelty for no explicit reason, but instead urges rulers to use it in the interests of the state.…

    • 1099 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    John Locke, on the other hand, takes a whole different viewpoint concerning the state of nature, and thus takes a differing viewpoint on how man and government should interact. Locke 's idea of the State of Nature is more that everyone is equal.. "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possesions and persons, as they think fit.." (p 80). Locke does not share Hobbes 's idea that men, left to their own devices, would be vicious and contemptable to one another. And this directly affects his ideals of social organization. To tie this…

    • 1081 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If the prince ignores the crime and disorderly in the country, it will continuously become more dangerous over time and people will not choose to live in their own country. The prince needs courage and cruelty, even if it will be against his will, to protect his country, which is one of the ultimate goals that must be achieved as the Prince. Machiavelli asks, is it better to be loved than feared, or vice versa? What's his answer and why? If he must choose one quality, M claims that the prince is better to be feared than loved, due to people’s human nature.…

    • 944 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Individuals, Han Fei argues, should be given government positions only on their merits. By electing only deserving officials, the ruler ensures his power is properly preserved, as they will only act in the interest of the state. “When a man of true worth becomes a minister, he faces north before the sovereign, presents tokens of his allegiance, and banished from his mind the thought of all other loyalties.” (Han Feizi, 24) The deserving official understands his position in society and obeys all. Furthermore, Han Fei argues that rulers must use laws to uphold his ministers. Laws are the means of prohibiting error and ruling out selfish motives.…

    • 1340 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Hobbes view, “A law of nature is a command or general rule, discovered by reason, which forbids a man to do anything that is destructive of his life or takes away his means for preserving his life, and forbids him to omit anything by which he thinks his life can best be preserved” (Leviathan, Chapter 14). Those who debate this subject often mistake right and law to be the same yet they ought to be distinguished. A right is the liberty…

    • 1796 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This sovereign power will protect the commonwealth by instituting laws and punishments that hold people accountable for their actions. It is meant to suppress the desires of men by maintaining a threat of fear over them. Punishments are established in order to restrain the ruthless ambition men have when it comes to attaining their wants. In the natural condition there is no “visible power” tied to the “fear of punishment” (106). That is why it is necessary to have a commonwealth, or sovereign authority to force people to uphold the contract.…

    • 1634 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays