The views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes on freedom and the state of nature
The views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes on freedom and the state of nature differ substantially. They both describe a stateless situation, but their findings differ. The residents of Locke's world feel more secure than those of Hobbes'. Their portrayal of human nature is one obvious point of contention. The other conclusion is about the nature of rights. Some rights, according to Locke, are autonomous and unaffected by government interference, but Hobbes views them as state dependent. In our discussion, we would look at Hobbes' and Locke's views on freedom. We would also discuss some of their thoughts on commonwealth freedom. Furthermore, we would investigate if liberty is a critical idea in the formation of government legitimacy.
Locke's Account
Locke's state of nature is far more advanced than that of Hobbes. According to Locke, humans are free to engage in anything they wish except committing suicide and that for self-reliance to be a reality they need to be free (Macpherson, 2010). He bases his beliefs on the assumption that humans need to get preserved as much as possible. The idea originates from the fact that we are God's creatures and should not get harmed. There is a duty to, therefore, abide by the law similar to any rule that requires an enforcer. Humans may not destroy themselves due to the responsibilities bestowed upon them, and they must reason. When not in conflict with personal needs, an individual should assist in sustaining other creatures. Humans have a duty not to harm each other unless when dispensing justice in the event of a violation. Locke's ideologies on freedom grant much liberty but with a cost of constant vigilance.
In explaining natural freedom, Locke creates an ideal topology using the state of war and nature. On the state of life, Locke argues that humans are in a natural state of perfect freedom and equality with one not having more than the other (Macpherson, 2010). In Locke's view, he sees equality as the relation to one another based on states such as personal sovereignty, liberty, and self-reliance. It is in contrast to other philosophers who support the belief of one person having a natural right of dominance over others. On the other hand, the state of war is as a result of disruptions in the state of nature and a clash of self-interest. Locke saw reason as a primary factor in guiding our behavior. Locke sets up the most basic form of crime and punishment allowing for the right to protect against an aggressor using any suitable means.
The worst form of aggression against the state of nature would be trying to impose absolute control over others which should be intolerable and necessitate a revolution. Anyone who dares such a move according to Locke deserved a death punishment. That was to imply that human should not allow themselves to lose their freedom as it would be akin to death. Locke further explains fundamental principles of property rights, an ordination of civil government, law, and responsibility (Macpherson, 2010). Locke inadequately defines genuine political power and states that the primary role of administrations is to secure the rights and freedom of people. Also, protect liberty against those who act contrary to the principle of reason.
Hobbes Account
Hobbes vision in the state of nature is unattractive. He rubbishes the ideologies that humans have inborn moral compasses directing their deeds and proposes that man is a package of desires and acts based on yearnings and dislikes. Hobbes presents quite a unique idea of liberty and civilization. According to Hobbes, democracy and freedom are two opposing concepts in the context of culture and nature. He also defines whether there are any absolute rights. Liberty and freedom refer to the absence of antagonism and may apply to less illogical and lifeless creatures than to rational ones. Naturally, everyone lives in fear of uncertainties that may take place. Hobbes views humans as evil and determines that freedom is not present in their existence. In civilization, people come together, and artificial craft chains referred to as civil laws get created (Hobbes, Shapiro & Dunn, 2010). In this form of society, the liberty of people lies in things that regulate their actions, therefore, making their sovereignty predetermined. As opposed to nature and freedom within commonwealth exists.
Hobbes has a materialistic and prudential assessment of the human condition that is radical and in political history contrary to other philosophers such as Locke (Hobbes, Shapiro & Dunn, 2010). He argues that self-interest is dominant in creatures. It is due to the objective to acquire as much pleasures as possible by avoiding hatred and pain with total disregard for others. There is no view on right and wrong hence the need for a tag to dictate it. The state of nature is thus not immoral but unethical. Justice and property are not available only balanced egoism. Scientific reasoning is used to achieve utmost rationale yet there is no safety to enjoy it. In such a pre-societal condition, there is absolute positive liberty. Due to the provisions of the natural right, people quarrel based on competition, glory, and force. Although Hobbes uses the laws of nature in his arguments, they are not binding perhaps only when one's life is secure.
In principle, we are required to tolerate the laws of nature, but in practice self-preservation takes priority. In comparison to Locke, Hobbes is not a natural law theorist as his equality ideologies are not secure in the state of nature thereby not achieving their potential. We are unable to come up with a civil society hence requiring a third party to unite our wills.
The different representations of the state of nature
The different representations of the state of nature produce varying defenses on the formation of government and allocation of authority. Locke believes humans escape the state of life in search of self-protection. In going towards a political society, humans lose only their exclusive power of nature, not other rights such as liberty and property. Unity gets formed by like-minded individuals for safety, comfort, and peace. There is no need for a sovereign power as people only need someone to maintain the laws not create them (Hobbes, Shapiro & Dunn, 2010). The situation results in bestowing power to the majority making the law a basis for government formation according to popular will. Rejection of an administration is permissible when the law gets subverted. Locke incorporates separation of powers as a further safeguard to shield the citizens.
Hobbes reading of the human nature could not permit any other form of a government apart from a coercive administration. It is because people would disregard the law of nature and apply the right to life. For Hobbes, persuasion is insufficient to oblige individuals to perform their mandates. In such a system, there is the transfer of securing peoples' rights of nature and the ability for self-rule to a Superior, subjecting them to positive legislation (Hobbes, Shapiro & Dunn, 2010). The ultimate result of the culmination of people who adore dominance over others is the introduction of a commonwealth. People give up their rights and freedom to a dominant authority that makes individuals' co-author their acts. The nation comes up with a civil society that authorizes the deeds of the Sovereign which they adopt with no resistance believing that they would go against their will. Abuse of power becomes simple as the Supreme can enact legislations disadvantaging citizens. People follow the law of nature as the Sovereign comes up with rules based on a contract with the people (Hobbes, Shapiro & Dunn, 2010). Separation of power is absent, and freedom lies where the law has nothing to say.
The formation of government legitimacy
Based on the hypotheses, freedom is not the only crucial aspect when evaluating government legitimacy. Consent of the people and the majority rule are some of the other fundamental elements. The ultimate sovereign power needs to rest on the people, and a legitimate administration must rest on their consensus. If an authority violates their rights, they are entitled to overthrow the regime and bestow another that sides with them. Therefore, people are to themselves make their judgment based on their priorities and will.
In conclusion
In conclusion, Locke and Hobbes disagree on numerous core questions on freedom. One seems to be comfortable with an innate morality while the other appears as self-interested and unrestrained. The recommendations have implications for the form of government that can be in place. Their positions are conflicting. Nevertheless, each theorist appears consistent with the structure of administration proposed in the logical determinations.
References
Hobbes, T., Shapiro, I., & Dunn, J. (2010). Leviathan or The matter, forme, & power of a common-wealth ecclesiastical and civil. Yale univ. press.
Macpherson, C. B. (2010). The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke.
