Social Contract Theory of John Locke Essay

Locke’s idea of the state of nature men had kept their promises and honoured their obligations. In locke’s first treatise he argued that there was no divine right for monarchs, because God didn't put men above others and therefore everyone was equal. In his second treatise he strikes Hobbes and speaks his thought on the state of nature “man is free and in this condition all men equal”. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free to order their actions, of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the of the law of nature. This idea influenced him to believe that human nature is represented by reason and tolerance the reasoning was "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it", and that law is the reason. Much different than Hobbes, who had believed people were selfish and needed to be

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions (Locke, Ch. 2, Section 6).

This is due to the fact that man is formed by God, thus man is sacred. Anyone who transgresses this law must be judged and punished by all other men as every man has this right. This punishment must be suitable to the transgression. Though Locke also states that any transgression may be punishable by death, even minor infringements. Furthermore, Locke’s view of the state of nature revolves around property. Not only are men equal in terms of strength and authority, but also have equal access to everything on this Earth. This is because Locke views that God has given the Earth to man in order to preserve himself. Thus man puts labour into the land. Through labour, man may own the property as long as it satisfies his needs, does not go to waste and there is enough for all. Consent is not necessary either – Locke believes this would hinder some people, leading them to die of starvation. Locke also points out that not everyone may follow the law of nature, thus in this state of nature, man is still unable to fully enjoy the bounty God has give to them. The Lockean view of the state of nature appears to be more persuasive than the other two theorist discussed as it does not fall into the trap of over simplifying human beings. It also gives into account those who may break the natural law -

Hobbes, on the other hand, does not foresee this case but only seems capable of enforcing a strong power. At this point, it is pertinent to point out the ambiguity that Locke shows in his "state of war," a state that is generated when natural law is placated by the willpower of certain men. The fundamental difference between Locke and Hobbes lies therefore in the conception of man in the state of nature; one sees him as a wolf for other men, and the other sees him as a born follower of the precepts of natural law until it is corrupted by their passions or by the actions of other men. The solution in both cases is to seek a reliable external power that limits the freedom of people and eliminate the "state of war." Unlike Hobbes, for Locke, the state of nature is not identified with the state of war. On the contrary, the state of war constitutes a violation, a degeneration of the state of nature, through the imposition of force in the absence of any right; a devaluation of what the state of nature must

Locke feels that this system of government is lacking in that the ruler has all control, and may not be stopped in abuses of power, which Locke fears. Humans beings decide to form a society out of the state of nature because there must be unity among men in order to protect one another, and so that they may punish offenders of the justice. Men do this under the rule of an indivdual who is selected by the people, and to whom the people give up some of their personal rights.Though humans give up certain rights to the chosen authoriy, they are entitled to certain rights reserved to them alone, which they hold within the society. All members of the society should be equal under the law of justice, and that no man is better than another, since all men are created equal, and all are equal before the laws of nature. The law of nature states that people attain property through the labour they do.The ruler or authority over a society should be an indivdual

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are often viewed as opposites, great philosophers who disagreed vehemently on the nature and power of government, as well as the state of nature from which government sprung. Hobbes’ Leviathan makes the case for absolute monarchy, while Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argues for a more limited, more representative society. However, though they differ on certain key points, the governments envisioned by both philosophers are far more alike than they initially appear. Though Hobbes and Locke disagree as to the duration of the social contract, they largely agree in both the powers it grants to a sovereign and the state of nature that compels its creation.

The state of nature is the idea of life without society, government, state, or laws. John Locke and Hobbes both agree that the state of nature is equivalent to a state of perfect freedom and equality, although they both understand these terms differently. Hobbes argues that equality leads to inequality in the state of nature. Inequality arises from the idea of man having the right to pursue their self-interest, with no duties to each other. Without duties to each other when, “Any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (Hobbes 184). In the Hobbesian natural state, man is made up of diffidence and lives with no security other than what he can provide himself (Hobbes 185). By virtue, men will enter a continuous state of war for self-preservation because it is man’s natural right to act on what he thinks is necessary to protect himself.

What is common in Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau is state of nature. In the state of nature all people are equal – although they have different talents they are equal, because having different talents doesn’t prevent equality - and have same rights but in time they try to command each other and make domination upon them. Hobbes associate this desire with the effort to dispel the insecurity which is caused by equality between people. According to his opinion, if two people desire the same thing that they can not possess at the same time, they turn on each other. – we can affirm that this hostility is generated by equality-. Mainly for the purpose of protecting their entity, sometimes only by enjoying they try to destroy or dominate each other.

The intent of this paper is to look more closely at what Hobbes and Locke wrote concerning the pre-political or pre-social state called the State of Nature; and the transition from the State of Nature to society, referred to as the social contract.

Locke foresaw the same potential threat as Hobbes, but he felt that man, as a social, animal, also had an innate desire to cooperate as well as compete. He could choose to be virtuous as well as venal (Morgan, 2011, p. 716). Not simply because he was “good,” but because cooperation and conflict reduction were also in his enlightened self-interest (Morgan, 2011, p. 594). Locke, unlike Hobbes, was a Deist, and was influenced by his religious view of man. Men are sinners

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both natural law theorists and social contracts theorists. While most natural law theorists have predominantly been of the opinion that humans are social animals by nature, Locke and Hobbes had a different perspective. Their points of view were remarkably different from those perpetuated by other natural law theorists. On the other hand, Locke’s perspective of human nature wasn’t quite as fine as Hobbe’s, although it was much simpler to understand based on its logical foundation. This essay compares and contrast

The original Social Contract tradition has had many authors, but for the purposes of this paper I will focus on John Locke’s work as one political system that might be used by a nation and the problems it entails that would have to be discussed for modern uses. Locke begins by describing a state of nature that entails equality and a state of perfect freedom for mankind to live as they want within the laws of nature (Locke 2009, 370). Locke’s work argues for his view of property, where a man has the right to the fruits of his labor but not to another man’s (Locke 2009, 372). In his view, the government is meant to prevent on man from seeking punishment that is unfit for the committed crime and that people join together for protection for themselves and their property (Locke 2009, 371-372). He argues also that no one man should be in charge and that a democracy should be used instead (Locke 2009, 371).

Since the beginning of the modern age, governments and states have existed in order to maintain moral law. Essentially these institutions are for the greater good of humanity. However, little thought is ever given to how humans lived without governments. Each and every person in the modern age is born into a state, and becomes a part of that state regardless of their will. The concept that humans are born into a state is derived from the social contract. The social contract is a voluntary agreement that allows for the mutual benefit between individuals and governments with regards to the protection and regulation of affairs between members in society. Essentially the idea is that citizens will give up some of their freedoms to the government in return for protection of their remaining rights. Throughout history, there have been a number of philosophers that have discussed the social contract and each philosopher has had there own social contract theories. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes was the foundation for social contract theory in Western political philosophy. While The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau was written a century later and inspired political reforms in Europe. Both Hobbes and Rousseau in their theories appeal to the social contract as being needed as a means to control man in society. However, their theories differ significantly on the basis of the state of nature, the phase after man has left his natural state and

To achieve this, in the state of nature, Locke argues that all one must do is to remove that which is to be appropriated from the common stock, for “[w]hatever then he removes out of the state that nature has provided and left it in, he has mixed his labor with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.” [6] Having once “mixed his labor” with something and made it his own, others are hence excluded from all ownership.

Where Hobbes’ believed the state of nature and a state of war to be one and the same, Locke saw them as two separate entities, and sees the state of war as a smaller occurrence. Locke believed that nature is at peace until one man attacks another. In this state of war it is suitable for the person being attacked to defend themselves from the transgressor.