Liberty vs.

Sovereignty
A comparison of Jon Lockes Second Treatise of Government and Thomas Hobbes Leviathan By Cal Kingry POT4601 Cuzan 2/23/13

On my honor, I affirm that in doing this paper, I have neither sought nor received assistance from anyone else.

Thomas Hobbes Leviathan and John Lockes Second Treatise of Government have inspired centuries of debate between both philosophers and political scientists. The works by both authors cover topics from the basic frameworks of society to the finer points of government. Both works are both very similar and drastically different. Some would say the Locke is just Hobbes light, while other will say that Locke is original and more refined than Hobbes. While there are both obvious similarities and obvious differences, I find that I would agree with those who say that Locke is a more developed argument, but is still predicated upon Hobbes himself. Hobbes provided the framework that has been referenced by many scholars since. The question is, did Locke basically copy Hobbes in his own words? My answer is both yes and no. Locke used Hobbes basic outline as a model to convey his own ideas. This does not mean that Locke copied Hobbes, it just means that Locke outlined his own arguments in a similar manner. There are three main categories that I will use to compare the arguments of both authors. Those categories are their views on the state of nature, the city or the commonwealth, and then the sovereign, or whichever legislative body holds supreme power. These three categories are the basic frameworks of both books. Those who say that both The Leviathan and the Second Treatise of Government are similar cite the state of nature, and also tie both of them in to human nature. Both Locke and Hobbes are in agreement on the distinction between the state of nature and a civil society, and both agree on the reasons that a person would willingly enter a civil society.

The state of nature according to Hobbes is both a very violent place and strangely structured. Hobbes does acknowledge that there are natural laws, but he mainly speaks of the

state of nature being a place of complete freedom. But with complete freedom comes violence. Men are quarrelsome in Hobbes state of nature. The state of nature also ties in with the nature of man. Hobbes state of nature is violent, with the absence of morality, Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice (Hobbes 125). According to Hobbes there is no law in the state of nature, and by consequence there can be no justice. Everything in the state of nature until man is put into a city, commonwealth, or any government or society, is without order. Lockes state of nature is less violent than that was described by Hobbes. Lockes state of nature is a state of perfect freedom (Locke 8). Locke sees the state of nature as a place of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another (Locke 8). There are numerous laws of nature governing the treatment of crimes, the preservation of property, and protection. Every man has a right to protect himself. Lockes state of nature is a place where there is no rule or government, but every man abides by the laws of nature and has rights that are recognized by everyone else. Every man has the right to enforce the laws of nature, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every mans hands, whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressor of that law (Locke 9). The state of nature is one where the people hold no power over each other, but they are responsible for executing the law upon their fellow man. The next distinction between the Locke and Hobbes comes from their differing views on the reasons that a person will enter a commonwealth. According to Hobbes, the laws alone in the state of nature are not enough, for the laws of nature of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions (Hobbes 85). The people need someone or some higher authority to enforce laws, and through the enforcement of

these laws comes peace. People enter a commonwealth for peace and their own security. Locke is in agreement with Hobbes on the formation of a commonwealth. According to Locke man consents to enter a commonwealth for their comfortable, safe, and peaceful living amongst another (Locke 52). Hobbes and Locke agree on the formation of civil societies, but their most polarizing difference comes from how they each feel that civil societies should be governed. Hobbes is the champion of the sovereign ruler with absolute power, while Locke puts the power in the hands of the people, and does not want power to be concentrated. According to Hobbes, a commonwealth is formed by people moving from the state of nature into a covenant, where they give up all of the rights that they had to an all-powerful sovereign. The rights of the sovereign are absolute. The people give up all rights when they enter a contract with the sovereign. The sovereign cannot give up power, nor can the people be freed from the covenant that they have with the sovereign, there can happen no breach of covenant on the part of the sovereign; and consequently none of his subjects, by and pretense of forfeiture, can be freed from his subjection (Hobbes 161). Once a subject gives up their rights to the sovereign, they dont even have the right to leave the commonwealth and dissolve their covenant. Hobbes sovereign can do no wrong. Locke does not believe in concentrated power. Locke sets up his commonwealth around a legislature. The key difference between the sovereign of course being that there are many people in a legislature as opposed to one ruler. Whereas Hobbes sovereign rules completely over the people with the people having no power or rights, the legislature of the commonwealth that Locke describes derives its power directly from the people, the legislative neither must nor can

transfer power to anybody else, or place it anywhere but where the people have (Locke 75). Another main difference between the two commonwealths is the rights of the people. In Hobbes commonwealth, the people forfeit all rights and power to the ruler. The people cannot leave a covenant with the sovereign, nor can the sovereign transfer power. In Lockes commonwealth laws are made by the legislature, but the power is held by the people. People may only enter a covenant with the commonwealth by their own consent. Locke and Hobbes have very different views on the structure of a civil society.

Hobbes [T]here can happen no breach of covenant on the part of the sovereign; and consequently none of his subjects, by and pretense of forfeiture, can be freed from his subjection There can be no way for a ruler or a subject to be freed of the covenant. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. There is no injustice, which means that all actions are considered just in Hobbes state of nature. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, there have no place There is no morality in the state of nature. For the laws of nature of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions There needs to be some sort of political power in place to give consequences for breaking the law. Locke [W]hat state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom. The state of nature according to Locke [W]herein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another Power must be held equally among all the persons in the commonwealth. [T]he execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every mans hands, whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressor of that law In Lockes state of nature, the

people execute the law, and every man has equal power to punish those who break the laws of nature. MEN being said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of his estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. A man has to give his own permission to become a part of a commonwealth. No sovereign can force his rule on any subject.

Due to the obvious similarities between The Leviathan and Second Treatise of Government, there are many who say that Locke is just Hobbes light. The argument is split between those who believe that Locke is just Hobbes light and those who say that Lockes work is a completely original work. The similarities are the basic outlines of both works. Both cover human nature, the state of nature, the laws of nature, the commonwealth, and the sovereign. Locke is more liberal in his approach, focusing more on civil liberties, property rights, and the laws of nature. Hobbes believes in the absolute power of the sovereign, while Locke believes in a government ruled by the people. If both works are looked at from an ideological perspective than it would definitely seem that Locke would be considered Hobbes light. Some would say that the purpose of Second Treatise of Government is simply to refute The Leviathan. They would say that Locke wanted to write his version of Hobbes.

On the other side of the argument, there are those who think that Locke is original in his writing of Second Treatise of Government. Locke uses the basic framework that Hobbes did, but that is because Hobbes framework is a very general overview of the different aspects of society. Locke isnt just Hobbes light. The Second Treatise of Government takes a completely different direction than The Leviathan. Locke stresses the rights of the ruled over the rights of the ruler. Locke prefers a legislature over a monarch. He sets up a government with the fear of

concentrated power in mind. To Locke, the worst from of government is tyranny, and as a result he puts as much power in the people as possible, whereas Hobbes favors the sovereign. Lockes government gets its power directly from the people, while Hobbes sovereign rules absolutely. Lockes Second Treatise of Government is independent and more modern than The Leviathan.

To answer the question, is Locke Hobbes light? My answer is no. Locke is a more enlightened version of Hobbes. Hobbes had no regard for the subject, but Locke believed that the power is held by the people. If you go by political ideologies, then technically you could say that Locke is lighter than Hobbes. But the differences are enough to tell that Locke did not just copy Hobbes and put it into his own words. Locke had a more sensible approach to government, but that does not necessarily make his work a more watered down because of it. I can see where Locke would have drawn inspiration from Hobbes, but when you look at the major points Locke is drastically at odds with Hobbes.

The question must be asked, who is right? In my opinion, Locke is right. Lockes ideas about government ruled by the people became the basis of the American Constitution. A government that is ruled by the people is by any means much more preferable than a monarchy. Locke uses such words as freedom and consent. Those powers are not given to the citizens in Hobbes Leviathan.

Lockes laws of nature show more faith in human nature than does Hobbes. Lockes ideals would have seemed very progressive when they were published in 1690, and there is a

reason we still read them today. Hobbes in comparison to Locke seems to be hidebound to the old monarchies. Hobbes is also very aristocratic, and puts much emphasis on a class system. I have a problem with Hobbes because he does not give man any benefit of the doubt. Hobbes sees man as unruly animals in the state of nature, and when they enter a commonwealth they cannot make decisions for themselves so they need an all-powerful sovereign to make decisions for them. Hobbes conclusions are predicated on the previous, so that if the reader disagrees with anything at a certain point the rest they will also disagree with.

In conclusion, both Lockes Second Treatise of Government and Hobbes Leviathan are two of the great works of both political science and philosophy that will continue to be dissected by scholars for generations. The argument between who was original and who was right will continue. Locke and Hobbes both used a similar outline to convey their viewpoints, but that is where the similarities ended. Hobbes was a traditional monarchist, and his viewpoints could be seen as hidebound compared to the views of Locke. Lockes views were very modern for their time. Locke believed in freedom and equality and a society that is ruled by the people, and not a select few or even a monarch. Some say that Locke is Hobbes light while others say that Locke was completely original. Both arguments are correct in their own respects. Personally I agree with Locke on many viewpoints and I find much of Hobbes views to be outdated. Locke and Hobbes are both very similar and drastically different. Lockes writings influenced the Constitution of the United States, which outlines a government run by the people. Locke was very fearful of tyranny, whereas it seems like Hobbes would not have minded it too much. Overall, Locke would have imagined a free, fair, and equal government where Hobbes would have favored and efficient one.

Works Cited Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan Parts 1 and 2. broadview editions, Print. Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Hackett, 1690. Print.