What Does Political Legitimacy Of The State Of Nature?

Thomas Hobbes and john Locke were both enlightment philosophers who use the state of nature as a formula in political philosophy. Both Locke and Hobbes had tried to influence by their sociopolitical background, “to expose the man as he was before the advent of the social life” (). Locke and Hobbes addressed man’s relation to the society around him; however, they came to different conclusions regarding the nature of human government.

What makes a political authority legitimate? A legitimate political authority, in this essay, will be taken to mean that there is a justification for an individual or a body to have power over other people in determining such things as laws and protection of freedom. To consider this question, three theories shall be looked at – Hobbes’, Rousseau and finally Locke and determine which gives the most persuasive account of legitimate political authority. To begin with, their hypothetical starting point, the state of nature, shall be discussed to establish the foundations of their political authority. Secondly, the reasons that shall lead man to get out of the state of nature will be examined in order to see if these logically follow on from

This quote from Thomas Hobbes ‘Leviathan,' summarizes his opinion of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity and misery. He basically suggests a natural impulse for war embedded in the souls of men who do not have a ruler, or a king. They are without bounds, and without limits. It is a state of anarchy that he envisages.

While enjoying hors d’oeuvres, the topic of discussion centered around criteria for political legitimacy. Thomas Hobbes led the discussion, outlining what he believes to be legitimate government. While American politics were founded on strict theories of consent, Hobbes is less concerned with the method by which a government is formed. In Leviathan, Hobbes mentions two paths for a sovereign to acquire power, a “Commonwealth by acquisition…[and] a Commonwealth by institution” (Hobbes, p. 110). Thomas

Thomas Hobbes describes his views on human nature and his ideal government in Leviathan. He believes human nature is antagonistic, and condemns man to a life of violence and misery without strong government. In contrast to animals, who are able to live together in a society without a coercive power, Hobbes believes that men are unable to coexist peacefully without a greater authority because they are confrontational by nature. “In the nature of man”, Hobbes says “there are three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence, thirdly, glory” and then he goes on to list man’s primary aims for each being gain, safety and reputation (Hobbes, Leviathan, 13, 6).

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are comparable in their basic political ideologies about man and their rights in the state of nature before they enter a civil society. Their political ideas are very much similar in that regard. The resemblance between Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies are based on a few characteristics of the state of nature and the state of man. Firstly, in the state of nature both Hobbes and Locke agree that all men are created equal, but their definitions of equality in the state of nature slightly differ. According to Locke, “…in the state of nature… no one has power over another…” Locke’s version or idea of equality in the state of

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.

Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race

He saw human nature was to be tamed by politics, not exercised. According to Aristotle, The nature of human was to be completed and flourished through community and politics (SEP, 2002). In contrast, Hobbes claims that the state of human nature was war. In his book of Leviathan, he states, “…there is no way for any man to secure himselfe, so reason-able, as Anticipation; that is, by force…till he see no other power great enough to endanger him…” (Leviathan, XIII). Since we cannot reach agreement over what is right and wrong, it is rational to think that we have no choice but to attack other people and that is the state of nature.

In defining political legitimacy, many theorists put forth a distinct set of values that frame their view on the authorities’ right to rule and citizen’s obligation to follow. Theorists such as Hobbes and Locke, both of their account on political legitimacy might look quite similar at first glance, because each theorized about the nature of mankind and the right political systems that would meet the needs of individuals. However, in Hobbes’ perspective, political authority does not pre-exist in individual’s state of nature, rather, it is created by the social contract and serves to ensure self-preservation which is threatened in a state of nature. In contrast, Locke thought that the social contract does not create authority, but that political authority is embodied in individuals and pre-exists in the state of nature, all individuals thus have the moral obligation to respect those rights made by authorities. In my point of view, Locke’s idea sounds more compelling than that of Hobbes’, because it allows individuals to have their own liberties free from an oppressive sovereign and prevents danger posed by absolute freedom.

Thomas Hobbes begins The Leviathan by establishing the idea that all men are created equal, although every man perceives himself as smarter than the next. As Hobbes says: "[men] will hardly believe there are many so wise as themselves; for they see their own wit at hand, and other men's at a distance" (25). He then argues for psychological egoism, describing mankind as driven by self-interest and, ultimately, only self-interest. This leads mankind to a constant state of war where human beings will pit themselves against each other in competition because "if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies: (25). Hobbes

John Locke (1689) and Thomas Hobbes (2010) share a common underlying concern: establishing a social contract between the government and the governed. To be legitimate, government must rest in the final analysis on the “consent” of the governed, they maintain. They also share a common view of humanity as prone to selfishness (Morgan, 2011 p. 575-800). Given the modern era, Hobbes views of the state of nature and government seem antiquated; no longer do the masses wish to be subservient to anyone man without question. Lockean principals are now the base for today’s modern, just, prosperous and free states.

In Hobbes' Leviathan, the conclusion on the nature between morality and the state is that the "Leviathan," i.e. the state, is responsible for the creation of morality and that without the state, man is without morality and is, in fact, a savage. Hobbes claims that the state originates morality by way of discussing human nature. He says: "So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory...Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men lie without common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war...Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every manis enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other scrutiny, than what their own strengthm and their own invention shall furnish withal." (Leviathan 592) What Hobbes is saying here, is that man, in a state of nature, is not moral.These three things (competition, diffidence, glory), are all that savage man has without government or "without common power" as Hobbes puts it. Therefore, the state removes the state of savagery from the nature of man and puts in morality.

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes paints a grim picture about man’s natural state. Famously characterized as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (Hobbes 89),” man’s life is chaotic. The state of nature, Hobbes insists, is a “state of warre(Hobbes 88)” which pits men against men. Man naturally aims for felicity, defined as “continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desire, that is to say, continual prospering (Hobbes 46).” People think of their own interests and their pursuits of said interests may put them into conflict with another, in which violent war may emerge. Man, thus, lives in a state of constant fear.

In Hobbes book Leviathan, he makes the natural man out to be a self obsessed monster who is only interested in his own self preservation. This would intern leave the state of nature to be consumed with war, “...because the condition of man is conditions of war of everyone against everyone”. With out the constrain of government Hobbes states “So that in the state of nature man will find three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (Leviathan, 76). These principles would then leave men in the state of nature, with a life that Hobbes describes as “solitary, poor nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan, 76). Over all Hobbes view on the state of nature is a materialistic world where without an “absolute sovereign” the life of man would be nothing more then the “state of war”.