Hobbes’ And Lockes Political Philosophy Essay Example for Free

Hobbes’ And Lockes Political Philosophy Essay On Hobbes’ Political Philosophy Hobbes’ scientistic philosophy presupposed that man is the self-sufficient interpreter of the facts of life and that man can correctly define what the facts of life are. Similar to the Sophists, Hobbes asserted that the knowable facts of life are only particular empirical things. Thus, Hobbes asserted that universal words, such as good and evil, are incomprehensible to man in the objective sense as rooted in reality. Because they are non-empirical and universal, they are mere names. Like the Sophists, Hobbes was also a nominalist. Moreover, Hobbes asserted that metaphysical essences and metaphysical forms do not exist. God’s attributes are merely names that man thinks would honor Him. Thus, like the Sophists, there is no natural hierarchy tied to the essences or purposes of things, but only a realm of natural causes. For Hobbes, man existed individually in a state of nature before civil government was formed. He asserted that human equality is based upon an empirical condition, namely power. Man in the state of nature was obligated only to seek Peace by self-preservation. Hobbes embraced a negative theory of freedom. There was really no law in the state of nature because the obligation to seek peace was not declared from a higher power; no one had a Bible in the state of nature to proclaim to him the will of almighty God. As one who believed in God’s existence, Hobbes’ scientistic epistemology and ontology forced him to embrace theological voluntarism. Ultimately, morals are grounded in the arbitrary will of God rather than His character. Hobbes postulated that the superior will and power are the only legitimate grounds of law.[1] In terms of what is good and evil, just and unjust, the natural man in a state of nature did whatever he reasonably thought was right in his own eyes to preserve his life. If killing another person was deemed necessary to preserve his life, then it was good and just in the sense that it preserved the peace. Thus, because good and evil, just and unjust are mere names whose meanings no one can agree on, the state of nature is a state of war, every man against every man. And because man naturally avoids the risk of harm, he arms himself to preserve the peace.[2] For Hobbes, only civil society has a supreme sovereign to give the citizens the standard they so desperately need to judge between good and evil, virtue and vice. For Hobbes, good and evil are not objective ideas rooted in reality that man can conceive and understand with his own mind. Therein is the fountain from which springs forth the conflict of individual man in a state of nature. Man, as a risk avoider, contracts with his fellow man to leave the state of nature and create an artificial civil society in which a third party will act as the supreme power. Hobbes pointed, the will of the parties in their social contract create their duties to each other and to the third party. The third party, the king, must define for the society what is good and evil, just and unjust so that the natural war of all against all will cease. The king, however, is not a party to the contract. The king has no contractual duty to the citizens, but only a natural duty to God to seek peace. The king seeks peace by deterring evildoers (the king defines who is evil) by wielding the sword and restricting free speech. Thus, any punishment meted out by the government is for the purpose of deterring wrongdoing, not retribution. That is, the â€Å"evildoer† is neither punished because he necessarily deserves it nor punished proportionally to his just desert, but because the punishment is an example to others how seriously the king takes his duty to preserve the peace. Thus, logically, the king could â€Å"rightly† punish an innocent citizen. The only inalienable right the citizens have is the natural right to preserve their life. Thus, they contracted to obey the king; they did not contract not to resist the king when being punished. In the state of nature, no man is obligated to heed another person’s opinion or power. Every person has a right to all things, to define what is good and what is evil, even to kill a person if one does not trust him. For Hobbes, the primary means of achieving peace is by creating an â€Å"artificial† society through individual covenantal relationships (Ibid, 66). In De Cive, Hobbes defined a contract as â€Å"the act of two, or more, mutually conveying their rights† and a covenant as that which involves promises that bind one to perform in the future (Ibid, 35-36). Hobbes’ political theory involves more of a social covenant idea than a social contract. But he does tend to use the two terms interchangeably, as is evidenced below, perhaps signifying both that rights are given up and that one is bound to perform in the future with the creation of civil society out of the state of nature.[3] Most assuredly, Hobbes’ political philosophy is a recipe for a tyrannical and oppressive government Similar to the Sophists, Hobbes’ scientistic philosophy supports the argument that any philosophy that has scientific presuppositions and begins with physical particulars produces a negative view of freedom, a simple view of human equality based upon power, authority that is equated with mere power and sanction, a deterrence theory of punishment, a natural law that can only be known in selfish generalities, natural rights that are grounded in man’s self-interests, nominalism, and theological voluntarism. In addition, because the social contract or covenant is made with each other and not with the sovereign, the sovereign has no obligation to the people that arises from the social contract. The only obligation the absolute sovereign king has is to God. In Leviathan, Hobbes discusses why a king with such absolute power â€Å"will not take all, spoil all, kill all†. Hobbes states: â€Å"[T]hough by right, that is, without injury to them, he may do it, yet can he not do it justly, that is, without breach of the natural laws, and injury against God. And therefore there is some security for subjects in the oaths which princes take†.[4] Hobbes seems to say that the king would not be seeking peace, the one obligation of the natural law, if he sought to â€Å"take all, spoil all, and kill all†. But if the king does abuse his power, the citizens have an inalienable right to resist death. For Hobbes, the citizens contracted or covenanted away their natural right to all things, but one: the preservation of life. According to Hobbes, that is the one inalienable right that men have. In essence, men contract or covenant with each other that the king may kill them if they do not perform their contractual duty, not that they will not resist when then king attempts to kill them. Although the king can â€Å"sin against God,† in no situation â€Å"is the right taken away from him, of slaying those who shall refuse to obey him†.[5] Moreover, the king has the right â€Å"to judge what opinions and doctrines are enemies unto peace, and also that he forbid them to be taught†.[6] Hence, it is the sole purpose of having a civic government. On Locke’s Political Philosophy The state of nature refers to the natural pre-political state of man. Except for the fact that Locke believed man naturally is a social person in a family, he agreed with Hobbes that man is not naturally a social being. Similar to Hobbes, civil society is not natural, but artificial. In a state of nature, man was free within the bounds of the natural law and was equal in power in relation to everyone else to act as judge in his own case and controversy with anyone else. The natural law obligates man to preserve himself: to do no harm, and to preserve the community in the absence of competition.[7] Similar to Hobbes, Locke equated human equality with power. Although Locke believed in a positive view of freedom whereby man is free only within law, Locke failed to show that man could know the specifics of the natural law code and thus, he failed to show that man really possessed a positive freedom in the state of nature. Do no harm does not provide much moral guidance. In reality, like Hobbes, for Locke man possessed a negative freedom. Locke stated â€Å"state all men are naturally in†¦ is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions, and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another†.[8] Similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, Locke believed man began his existence in a state of nature. For Locke, the state of nature is divided into two historical stages. In the first stage, man had a natural property right over his own body. Everything else was naturally held in common. When a man labored over something that was held in common, he acquired property in it. Moreover, man had a natural right of subsistence, which was regulated by spoilage. In other words, what man possessed as property by mixing his labor with it was limited by what he could consume before spoiling. The second stage of the state of nature was initiated in by the invention and use of money. With the invention of money, man could enlarge his possessions way beyond what he could consume before spoiling. Money does not spoil. Although the use of money produced the unequal division of the earth, overall, Locke argues everyone is better off: For Locke, mankind socially compacted to form civil society for several reasons: first, some in the state of nature were ignorant of the law of nature, second some were biased by the amount of property they had, third, there was no impartial judge to resolve disputes, and fourth, there was no third power to execute the law of nature. Underlying all of these reasons to form civil society is, similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, man’s self-interested passion to preserve himself. Because not one theoretical or practical principle is written on man’s heart, the natural law is not written on man’s heart. Because the natural law can be known only from a lawmaker, those who are ignorant of God’s existence because they fail to apply their reason are ignorant of the natural law. For those who do apply their reason and come to know of God’s existence and the natural law, Locke claimed that they could know the natural law code as they could know the specifics of mathematics. But Locke never came close to showing that the specific moral code is capable of mathematical demonstration. Locke extremely overestimated how much moral knowledge his empiricist epistemology could deliver. Locke’s empiricist epistemology could not demonstrate in detail what was good or evil, just or unjust For Locke, man’s conscience is nothing other than his own opinion of what is right and wrong. Thus, similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, Locke was essentially a skeptic. God’s natural law governs his creatures. Although Locke wrote of God’s right and authority to rule over his creatures, Locke never justifies his assertion. Locke never demonstrated that God was anything except the most powerful being that could compel obedience through rewards and punishments. Locke’s empiricist epistemology does not allow him to draw the distinction between authority and mere power. Thus, like Hobbes, punishment for Locke was merely deterrence. Moreover, because Locke was so consumed with, and analyzed so thoroughly, the empiricist epistemology of natural law, Locke demonstrates clearer than Hobbes that scientism coupled with a belief in God leads to nothing but theological voluntarism, i.e., the law is ultimately grounded in God’s almighty will, not His unchanging character, such that God can will anything to be moral. Thus, whoever embraces an empiricist epistemology and at the same time, acknowledges God as the ultimate lawgiver, will be left with nothing but theological voluntarism. Thus, scientistic modernism destroyed the firm and unchanging foundation of civil law and the only real restraint to civil tyranny, namely, a natural law grounded in God’s eternal and unchanging character. Similar to Hobbes, the source of civil governmental power for Locke is the consent of the people. There are two natural powers that are given to civil society, the legislative and executive. The legislative power in any civil government is superior over the executive because it gives the laws to the executive. Some of man’s natural executive power is retained. This is so because mans natural right of self-preservation is inalienable, i.e., it cannot be given over to civil government. Thus, men in civil society have a right to resist the civil government if, after a long train of abuses, their opinion on the basis of their feelings grounded in their experience is that the civil government has violated the natural law. The civil governmental authority puts itself into a state of war with the people when it repeatedly violates the natural law. Tyranny occurs when the civil government acts out of its own self-interest and does not protect the property of the people. Locke’s theory of civil resistance is weak, however, because he failed to demonstrate that the specific code of the natural law is knowable.[9] Similar to Hobbes, Locke’s empiricist epistemology made the end of civil government empirical, i.e., the self-preservation of the people. Locke’s theory of civil resistance is based upon the personal opinions of the people. Thus, Locke could support that notion that the civil government should tolerate every religious opinion that does not threaten the people’s physical property.[10] Moreover, Locke placed most religious beliefs in the realm of mere opinions. For Locke, only a few religious propositions were within the realm of demonstrative knowledge. Overall, Locke’s theory of religious toleration is a two-edged sword. In a sense, it encouraged theological relativism. In another sense, it allowed religious liberty, albeit seemingly equating toleration with liberty (negative freedom). Finally, if Hobbes’ political philosophy described how a society of skeptics could live together under one sovereign power, then Lockes political philosophy described how a society of skeptics could live together by balancing their opinions with the civil governments. Thus, contrary to Hobbes, Locke believed that a little civil resistance now and then is a good thing. Although Lockes political philosophy guards against tyranny better than the political philosophy of the Sophists and Hobbes, similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, Locke’s scientistic philosophy supports the argument that any philosophy that has scientific presuppositions and begins with physical particulars produces a negative view of freedom, a simple view of human equality based upon power, authority that is equated with mere power and sanction, a deterrence theory of punishment, a natural law that can only be known in selfish generalities, natural rights that are grounded in mans self-interests, nominalism, and theological voluntarism. BIBILIOGRAPHY Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, ed. Michael Oakeshott. New York: Simon . Schuster, Inc., 1997. Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. [1]   Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil (New York: Simon . Schuster, Inc., 1997), 54-63) [2] Ibid, 72-77. [3] Ibid, 11-21. [4] Ibid, 77. [5] Ibid, 79. [6] Ibid, 76. [7] Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 283-290. [8] Ibid, 263. [9] Ibid, 290-292. [10] Ibid.