Hobbes’ And Lockes Political Philosophy Essay Example for Free

Hobbes And Lockes Political Philosophy EssayOn Hobbes Political PhilosophyHobbes scientistic school of theme presupposed that gay is the self-sufficient interpreter of the f tours of life and that man can correctly define what the positions of life argon. a standardised to the Sophists, Hobbes asserted that the knowable facts of life argon sole(prenominal) particular empirical things. Thus, Hobbes asserted that universal words, much(prenominal) as good and evil, are incomprehensible to man in the objective sense as grow in reality. Because they are non-empirical and universal, they are guileless names. Like the Sophists, Hobbes was also a nominalist. Moreoer, Hobbes asserted that meta physiological essences and metaphysical variants do non exist. idols attributes are holyly names that man thinks would honor Him. Thus, like the Sophists, there is no indwelling hierarchy tied to the essences or purposes of things, but only(prenominal) a land of inseparable causes. For Hobbes, man existed individually in a say of nature in the lead polite establishment was formed. He asserted that forgiving equality is based upon an empirical condition, namely power. Man in the secern of nature was obligated only to seek Peace by self-preservation. Hobbes embraced a negative theory of turndom. there was really no jurisprudence in the domain of nature because the obligation to seek peace was not declared from a higher power no one had a Bible in the reconcile of nature to proclaim to him the will of almighty God. As one who believed in Gods foundation, Hobbes scientistic epistemology and ontology agonistic him to embrace theological voluntarism.Ultimately, morals are grounded in the arbitrary will of God rather than His character. Hobbes postulated that the excellent will and power are the only legitimate grounds of law.1 In terms of what is good and evil, well(p) and un only when, the essential man in a res publica of nature did whatever he re asonably thought was a sort tabu in his own eyes to remain his life.If starting another person was deemed necessary to preserve his life, and so it was good and just in the sense that it preserved the peace. Thus, because good and evil, just and unsportsmanlike are mere names whose meanings no one can agree on, the state of nature is a state of war, every man against every man. And because man naturally avoids the risk of harm, he arms himself to preserve the peace.2For Hobbes, only well-mannered society has a supreme soereign to give the citizens the standard they so desperately guide to pretend between good and evil, virtue and vice. For Hobbes, good and evil are not objective ideas root in reality that man can conceive and understand with his own mind. Therein is the fountain from which springs ahead the conflict of individual man in a state of nature.Man, as a risk avoider, stimulates with his sheik man to leave the state of nature and create an artificial civic soc iety in which a third fellowship will act as the supreme power. Hobbes pointed, the will of the parties in their accessible contract create their duties to each other and to the third party. The third party, the fagot, must define for the society what is good and evil, just and unjust so that the natural war of all against all will cease. The king, however, is not a party to the contract. The king has no contractual traffic to the citizens, but only a natural duty to God to seek peace. The king seeks peace by deterring evildoers (the king defines who is evil) by wielding the sword and restricting free speech.Thus, whatever punishment meted out by the government is for the purpose of deterring wrongdoing, not retribution. That is, the evildoer is neither punished because he necessarily deserves it nor punished proportionally to his just desert, but because the punishment is an example to others how seriously the king tamp downs his duty to preserve the peace. Thus, logically, t he king could honorablely punish an innocent citizen. The only inalienable right the citizens have is the natural right to preserve their life. Thus, they contracted to obey the king they did not contract not to resist the king when being punished.In the state of nature, no man is obligated to heed another persons opinion or power. Every person has a right to all things, to define what is good and what is evil, unconstipated to kill a person if one does not trust him. For Hobbes, the primary means of achieving peace is by creating an artificial society through individual arrangemental relationships (Ibid, 66).In De Cive, Hobbes defined a contract as the act of two, or more, mutually conveying their rights and a covenant as that which involves promises that bind one to perform in the future (Ibid, 35-36). Hobbes policy-making theory involves more of a social covenant idea than a social contract. But he does tend to use the two terms interchangeably, as is evidenced below, perhaps signifying some(prenominal) that rights are condition up and that one is bound to perform in the future with the creation of obliging society out of the state of nature.3Most assuredly, Hobbes semipolitical philosophy is a recipe for a dominating and oppressive government Similar to the Sophists, Hobbes scientistic philosophy supports the argument that any philosophy that has scientific presuppositions and begins with physical particulars produces a negative view of freedom, a simple view of human equality based upon power, place that is equated with mere power and sanction, a deterrence theory of punishment, a natural law that can only be known in selfish generalities, natural rights that are grounded in mans self-interests, nominalism, and theological voluntarism.In addition, because the social contract or covenant is made with each other and not with the sovereign, the sovereign has no obligation to the people that arises from the social contract. The only obligation the a bsolute sovereign king has is to God. In Leviathan, Hobbes discusses why a king with such absolute power will not take all, spoil all, kill all. Hobbes states Though by right, that is, without injury to them, he may do it, yet can he not do it justly, that is, without breach of the natural laws, and injury against God. And therefore there is some security for subjects in the oaths which princes take.4Hobbes seems to say that the king would not be seeking peace, the one obligation of the natural law, if he desire to take all, spoil all, and kill all. But if the king does abuse his power, the citizens have an inalienable right to resist death. For Hobbes, the citizens contracted or covenanted away their natural right to all things, but one the preservation of life.According to Hobbes, that is the one inalienable right that men have. In essence, men contract or covenant with each other that the king may kill them if they do not perform their contractual duty, not that they will not re sist when then king attempts to kill them. Although the king can sin against God, in no situation is the right taken away from him, of slaying those who shall refuse to obey him.5 Moreover, the king has the right to judge what opinions and doctrines are enemies unto peace, and also that he forbid them to be taught.6 Hence, it is the sole purpose of having a civil government.On Lockes Political PhilosophyThe state of nature refers to the natural pre-political state of man. Except for the fact that Locke believed man naturally is a social person in a family, he agreed with Hobbes that man is not naturally a social being. Similar to Hobbes, civil society is not natural, but artificial. In a state of nature, man was free within the bounds of the natural law and was equal in power in relation to everyone else to act as judge in his own case and controversy with anyone else.The natural law obligates man to preserve himself to do no harm, and to preserve the community in the absence seiz ure of competition.7 Similar to Hobbes, Locke equated human equality with power. Although Locke believed in a positive view of freedom whereby man is free only within law, Locke failed to steer that man could know the specifics of the natural law code and thus, he failed to show that man really possessed a positive freedom in the state of nature. Do no harm does not provide much moral guidance. In reality, like Hobbes, for Locke man possessed a negative freedom.Locke stated state all men are naturally in is a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions, and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without enquire leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and legal power is reciprocal, no one having more than another.8Similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, Locke believed man began his existence in a state of nature. For Locke, the state of nature is divided into tw o historical stages. In the first stage, man had a natural property right over his own body. Everything else was naturally held in common. When a man labored over something that was held in common, he acquired property in it. Moreover, man had a natural right of subsistence, which was regulated by spoilage. In other words, what man possessed as property by mixing his labor with it was restrict by what he could consume before spoiling. The second stage of the state of nature was initiated in by the invention and use of money.With the invention of money, man could enlarge his possessions way beyond what he could consume before spoiling. Money does not spoil. Although the use of money produced the unequal division of the earth, overall, Locke argues everyone is better off For Locke, mankind socially compacted to form civil society for several reasons first, some in the state of nature were ignorant of the law of nature, second some were biased by the amount of property they had, third , there was no impartial judge to resolve disputes, and fourth, there was no third power to execute the law of nature. Underlying all of these reasons to form civil society is, similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, mans self-interested passion to preserve himself.Because not one suppositional or practical principle is written on mans heart, the natural law is not written on mans heart. Because the natural law can be known only from a lawmaker, those who are ignorant of Gods existence because they fail to apply their reason are ignorant of the natural law. For those who do apply their reason and come to know of Gods existence and the natural law, Locke claimed that they could know the natural law code as they could know the specifics of mathematics.But Locke never came close up to showing that the specific moral code is capable of mathematical demonstration. Locke extremely overestimated how much moral noesis his empiricist epistemology could deliver. Lockes empiricist epistemology could not demonstrate in detail what was good or evil, just or unjust For Locke, mans conscience is nothing other than his own opinion of what is right and wrong. Thus, similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, Locke was basically a skeptic.Gods natural law governs his creatures. Although Locke wrote of Gods right and authority to swayer over his creatures, Locke never justifies his assertion. Locke never demonstrated that God was anything except the most powerful being that could induce obedience through rewards and punishments. Lockes empiricist epistemology does not allow him to draw the distinction between authority and mere power. Thus, like Hobbes, punishment for Locke was merely deterrence.Moreover, because Locke was so consumed with, and analyzed so thoroughly, the empiricist epistemology of natural law, Locke demonstrates clearer than Hobbes that scientism coupled with a vox populi in God leads to nothing but theological voluntarism, i.e., the law is ultimately grounded in Go ds almighty will, not His unchanging character, such that God can will anything to be moral. Thus, whoever embraces an empiricist epistemology and at the resembling time, acknowledges God as the ultimate lawgiver, will be left with nothing but theological voluntarism. Thus, scientistic modernism destroyed the firm and unchanging foundation of civil law and the only real restraint to civil tyranny, namely, a natural law grounded in Gods eternal and unchanging character.Similar to Hobbes, the starting time of civil governmental power for Locke is the consent of the people. There are two natural powers that are given to civil society, the legislative and executive. The legislative power in any civil government is superior over the executive because it gives the laws to the executive. Some of mans natural executive power is retained. This is so because mans natural right of self-preservation is inalienable, i.e., it cannot be given over to civil government.Thus, men in civil society have a right to resist the civil government if, after a long train of abuses, their opinion on the basis of their feelings grounded in their experience is that the civil government has violated the natural law. The civil governmental authority puts itself into a state of war with the people when it repeatedly violates the natural law. Tyranny occurs when the civil government acts out of its own self-interest and does not protect the property of the people. Lockes theory of civil resistance is weak, however, because he failed to demonstrate that the specific code of the natural law is knowable.9Similar to Hobbes, Lockes empiricist epistemology made the end of civil government empirical, i.e., the self-preservation of the people. Lockes theory of civil resistance is based upon the personal opinions of the people. Thus, Locke could support that notion that the civil government should tolerate every phantasmal opinion that does not threaten the peoples physical property.10Moreover, Loc ke placed most religious beliefs in the realm of mere opinions. For Locke, only a few religious propositions were within the realm of demonstrative knowledge. Overall, Lockes theory of religious toleration is a two-edged sword. In a sense, it encouraged theological relativism. In another sense, it allowed religious liberty, albeit seemingly equating toleration with liberty (negative freedom).Finally, if Hobbes political philosophy described how a society of skeptics could live together under one sovereign power, then Lockes political philosophy described how a society of skeptics could live together by balancing their opinions with the civil governments. Thus, contrary to Hobbes, Locke believed that a little civil resistance now and then is a good thing.Although Lockes political philosophy guards against tyranny better than the political philosophy of the Sophists and Hobbes, similar to the Sophists and Hobbes, Lockes scientistic philosophy supports the argument that any philosophy that has scientific presuppositions and begins with physical particulars produces a negative view of freedom, a simple view of human equality based upon power, authority that is equated with mere power and sanction, a deterrence theory of punishment, a natural law that can only be known in selfish generalities, natural rights that are grounded in mans self-interests, nominalism, and theological voluntarism.BIBILIOGRAPHYHobbes, Thomas. Leviathan Or the Matter, Forme and baron of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, ed. Michael Oakeshott. New York Simon . Schuster, Inc., 1997.Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1988.1 Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan Or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil (New York Simon . Schuster, Inc., 1997), 54-63)2 Ibid, 72-77.3 Ibid, 11-21.4 Ibid, 77.5 Ibid, 79.6 Ibid, 76.7 Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1988) 283-290 .8 Ibid, 263.9 Ibid, 290-292.10 Ibid.