Philosophers John Locke and Thomas Hobbes: Opposing Views on Equality
Philosophers John Locke and Thomas Hobbes initiated opposing views about equality and their divergent attitudes towards human beings. Ideally, their divergent thoughts and opinions begin at the definition level; Thomas bases his arguments on the action while Locke emphasizes liberty. Nonetheless, they together agree that human rights and equality, in general, are derived from the human intuition. The English philosophers support their views on human rights based on the state of nature. Thomas 's highlights that human beings are not entitled to equality world because of the unlimited rights everyone enjoys in the state of nature while Lock's asserts that human beings have the right to be treated equally, which in turn displays the positive side of humanity. The equality perspective has drawn mixed thoughts from Locke, Hobbes, and mill. Despite the differences in thoughts, philosophers Locke, Hobbes, and Mill share some opinion on the way they view equality.
Hobbes' Perspective on Equality
Hobbes refers to equality as a form of action individuals undertake to obtain liberty from the government. In this case, Hobbes asserts that equality offers people with the opportunity to choose whether to act or not towards a particular situation. On the other hand, Hobbes states that equality to an extent does not fully empower people to exercise certain freedoms freely. For instance, an individual has the right to travel but this does not entitle him or her the means of travel. In other words, equality does not guarantee a person to have a specific right towards something; he or she cannot obstruct another person from using the power.
Locke's Concept of Equality
Locke does not explain the concept of equality the way Hobbes does, but he conceives the elements of equality opposing the human action component. Locke describes the elements as the most important components to which we can achieve equality. In essence, a right is something in-born hence, human beings are obliged to preserve and protect. To prove his point, Hobbes asserts that the freedom to liberty is covered in Locke's definition since in preserving and protecting a right we increase the chances of achieving equality.
The Importance of Equality to Human Beings
From both Locke and Hobbes, equality is rooted in the human motivation with the primary mission of human beings is to protect their lives. Therefore, Hobbes articulates equality as "the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature, that is to say, his own life (Hobbes 98). Similarly, Locke asserts that people are required to preserve themselves for a greater future. Further, he adds that the most important purpose of a human being is living a fulfilling life. Thus, every individual should yearn for a better world with equal rights to preserve their lives. Locke's argument precedes the fact that people have a right to the means: drink, eat, and possess other valuable things as nature affords (Locke 301). Locke argues that with equality, an individual possesses the right to kill a petty thief in self-defence because it would be difficult to know the thief's intentions. Both philosophers acknowledge the importance of equality even though it invades the human's purpose to live. The philosophers' arguments seem logical since such rights improve our chances to not only live but also lead a fulfilling life. Yet as more people demand more rights to achieve equality, there is a greater chance of people having divergent views and conflict would arise.
Hobbes' Views on Reaping Fruits Unlabored
In his arguments, Hobbes advocates people to demand more rights from the authorities since it is in the state of nature. In relation to his first law, he asserts that every man has a right to everything. His understanding of equality generates an overarching power that in turn leads to competition that degenerates to war since every person is against the other. His cynical approach towards achieving equality leads to anarchy where everyone wants to reap the fruits he or she did not labour. In other words, human beings are willing to destroy to achieve their selfish ends. Hobbes counters Locke's arguments by arguing that people have the right to deny others their rights if it is the only alternative to preserve their rights.
Mill's Perspective on the Racial Contract
Mill's ideology on the Racial Contract naturalizes, justifies, and normalises white domination and advocates for the subordination of minority populations. The Racial Contract is epistemological, political, and moral in nature. The principle is moral since it sets different code whereby each racial group must follow (Mills 9). The ideology is also political because it has developed a hierarchal racial polity specifically for the white politicians. Lastly, it is epistemological such that it establishes specific norms through which all signatories must follow. In this case, norms such as lack of recognition to existing land law, evasion, and ignorance are customs members must adhere. To understand Locke's theory we should acknowledge that equality is based on an individual's ability to use their reasoning that will, in turn, lead them to act according to God's will. Locke does not wish to subject people with low intellectual reasoning to the test due to their cognitive abilities.
Mill's View on Equal Treatment
Nonetheless, he criticizes the rich in the society for being concerned on popularity instead of concentrating on their reason to seek the truth. His ideas main arguments on equality seek to address the way we should treat each other and political authority ensuring that people lead a social life with equal rights. Mills perception of equality differs from that of Locke and Hobbes. In this case, Mill's version of equal treatment leads to the unequal amount of pleasure and pain. Therefore, in his arguments, he alleges that there is no opposing view on ordering different levels of punishment. For instance, if a magistrate was tasked with presiding and sentencing of two crimes that would have committed the same crime, if one if single with no dependents while the other criminal is a breadwinner normally equal conviction will lead to unequal quantities of pain. Mill's argument on equal treatment affirms that different situations cause unequal pleasure and pain thereby differing from Hobbes and Lobbe's view.
Summary: Locke, Hobbes, and Mill on Equality
Philosophers John Locke and Thomas Hobbes offer divergent views of equal treatment. Initially, their opposing views start at the definition level where Hobbes defines equality as action while Locke's definition focuses on freedom. Despite their opposing thoughts, the philosophers agree that equality is derived from human instinct. Hobbes argues that for people to achieve equality they must act to achieve their desired ends. On the contrary, Locke does not offer a succinct definition of equality; instead, he acknowledges its elements but refuses the human action component. Further, Mill's claims that equal treatment differs in different circumstances causing unequal pleasure and pain thereby differing from and Lobbe's and Hobbes view.
Works Cited
Charles, W. "Mills, The Racial Contract." (1997).
Hobbes, T. (1968). Leviathan: Edited with an Introd. by CB Macpherson. Penguin Books.
Locke, John. "Two treatises of government, ed." Peter Laslett (Cambridge, 1988) 301 (1988).
