Comparison of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke: Human Nature

1373 Words3 Pages

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity; secondly, determine whether Hobbes’ resultant state of nature (an all out war) necessarily follows from his premises; thirdly, discuss whether Hobbes’ absolute sovereignty sufficiently preserves mankind in light of Locke’s separation of powers; and ultimately determine the validity and soundness of Hobbes’ political theory.
Hobbes structures his “Leviathan” from basic underlying assumptions of the state of humanity. First, Hobbes believes, “Nature hath made men equal in the faculties of body and mind” (Hobbes 74). Fundamentally, all men are equal. Even physically weaker men can make plots or conspire with others to defeat the stronger, thus equalizing physical capabilities. Mental prowess depends on experience and as men mature they gain knowledge, thus equalizing intellectual faculties. Therefore all equal men must share in the same desires. All men seek to achieve pleasures and try to avoid dangers, thus desire motivates their actions. Hobbes’ second premise says, “All the voluntary actions of m...

... middle of paper ...

...of his political theory. Thus, Hobbes cannot form peace and harmony in a society under a “Leviathan.” Furthermore, Locke shows alternate paths in the premises of human nature, thus removing soundness from Hobbes’ argument. One one hand, Hobbes’ theory is valid and makes deductive sense. Hobbes logically argues from the premises of human nature–equal, egotistic, and competitive–to the resultant universal war. However, his controversial solution to escape the state of nature in the form of an absolute sovereign, in combination with Locke’s advocation of an optimistic view of humanity, create dubious impressions of the “Leviathan’s” soundness. Nonetheless, Hobbes’ creation of a social contract will undoubtedly influence many modern political philosophers.

Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, edited Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. 1994.

Open Document