Hobbes and Locke

In many ways Hobbes and Locke’s conclusions on man and society create a polarizing argument when held in comparison to each other. For instance the two make wildly conflicting assertions concerning mankind’s capacity to foster and achieve organized society. Hobbes asserts humans cannot be trusted to govern themselves lest they fall into war and chaos; Locke, on the other hand concludes almost the exact opposite. Despite the polarity in each man’s train of thought, both philosophies share a common ancestor: a state defined by total equality where no human is superior or holds dominance over another. Although this is the base of both theories, it is the only similarity between the two. This commonality can be illustrated when tracing each argument deductively from their conclusions, the comparison reveals that the heaviest and most base opposition in each mans philosophy is his assertions regarding the nature of human beings. One of Locke’s broadest conclusions is his definition of the role of the state. He defines the states only real role is to ensure justice is done based on what he states are unalienable rights granted to all: life, liberty and the pursuit of estate. Because society has given birth to the state to defend these rights that define justice, society also grants legitimacy to the state. We see echoes of Locke’s theories manifested in societal archetypes like democracy and perhaps even certain anarchist theories. Hobbes, on the other hand attested to a role of government akin to monarchy or dictatorship. His definition of the role of the state is a direct inversion of Locke’s. He states society is a creation of the state and therefore the governed surrender their rights so the state can fulfill its main func... ... middle of paper ... ...o self-preservation, and a lack of morals coupled with an inability to establish ownership of property will eventually lead to a state of war. This of course necessitates a ruling state to determine what is good and evil, and to enforce morality and justice. Again Locke claims the opposite, that due to the existence of natural law and an enlightened self-interest, human beings by nature are social and peaceful creatures capable of governing themselves. It is peculiar then, that both these theories –being almost perfect logical inversions of each other- have grown from two different answers to the same question: how would the interactions of completely equal, ungoverned people evolve over time? Reasoning deductively it is clear that Hobbes’ and Locke’s differing views on the nature of human beings is the core difference between their theories of societal evolution.