1 Hobbes v. Locke
Do you generally believe people are good? If you trust your fellow man so much, then why do you lock your door? This is a form of the question, the great philosopher, Thomas
Hobbes would propose to people who believe that the general human state of nature is good.
Thomas Hobbes had a pessimistic view of human nature, similar to John Calvin. Hobbes believed that the rapacious nature of man was for everyone to be at war with everyone. By competing in each person’s own self interest, which led to life being poor, solitary, and brutish until the formation of government. In the state of nature, this enables others to be able to come and take that away from you. This is the intersection where Thomas Hobbes and another great philosopher, John Locke, agree. They both believe that a source of social contract is necessary in order to get along in the state of nature. Although Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both developed the social contract theory, a closer examination of each fundamental philosophy reveals a greater contrast in theory than most fail to realize such as the contrast in origins of government, limitations of government, dwellings of sovereignty, and the rights of revolution.
The social contract theory was developed by multiple influential thinkers of political philosophy. One of those men was Thomas Hobbes, who lived during the English Civil War.
During this war, he witnessed the collapse of absolute government and therefore influenced his theory that having absolute government is the only way. Even though most readers of his works recognize the significance of the law of nature, only a small number of these readers comprehend the purpose the law of nature plays in his political theory (Zagorin). At the core, Hobbes was an

2 advocate of the form of absolutism referred to as political absolutism. By definition, absolutism is the “political doctrine and practice of unlimited, centralized authority and absolute sovereignty, as vested especially in a monarch or dictator” (Absolutism). Through understanding of the essence of absolutism, one can then infer that due to the molding experiences and perspectives Hobbes acquired from living during the English Civil War, he was ignorant to the idea that people could live peacefully in the absence of absolutism within a social contract.
In 1650, Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan, a book that explains his reasoning for the necessary establishment of a social contract between an absolute government and the people. The actual character of the Leviathan is representative of an absolute power such as described in the
Bible. In the book of Job 41:1, it suggests, “Can you pull in Leviathan with a fishhook or tie down its tongue with a rope?” (Job 41:1). The simple and hopefully obvious answer to this question is no because this question implies that the absolute power, or Leviathan, is so powerful that nothing would dare to challenge it. Furthermore, the Leviathan would not be caught with a hook. While perusing the Leviathan, one may come across the quote, “…if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end… endeavour to destroy or subdue one another” (Hobbes). From this example one can begin to see where some of Hobbes key points on the state of nature originated. This quote directly correlates to the idea that Hobbes uses to describe the state of nature which is that man is by nature evil (Strauss). Due to this supposedly inherent evil state of nature, Hobbes believed that a legitimate sovereign, such as a monarch, is to be “not only above human law, but the source of it” (Philpott). This opinion of Hobbes translates to an absolute government being the

3 source of sovereignty. In the 18th century, this theory would be plausible, but since then it has evolved. History has taught that absolute power corrupts absolutely through the countless examples of governments that were not limited. The concept of governmental limitation is one more case where Hobbes and Locke differ due to each philosopher’s contrasting point of view on the dissolution of government. From this understanding, one can continue to grasp how Thomas
Hobbes differs from John Locke in that
Hobbes believes government is established to protect each us from ourselves, while Locke bases it upon the need to protect our natural rights.
John Locke, an advocate of constitutionalism, forms his theory on the basis of natural rights. As opposed to Hobbes who has more of a political perspective, Locke uses a religious perspective and bases his opinion on the idea that God handed down the natural rights of man through Adam. Therefore these natural rights are given to all human beings. However, in the state of nature, it is difficult to protect them. This is where Locke states that people get involved in a social contract to defend these natural rights. From this, it is evident that the government is established in order to protect these natural rights. This government differs from Hobbes vision of government because Hobbes argues that the government is to be practically untouchable, whereas Locke believes it is to be controlled by the people who established it. At the core of
Locke’s belief, independence is in the hands of each individual. Locke is adamant that someone is not able to renounce or forfeit their status of rights by choosing to be another’s slave
(Waldron). Locke’s argument is derived directly from the “God­given nature of our moral status”
(Waldron). This principle was reiterated numerous times during the founding of the United
States and appears in the words Thomas Jefferson used in the Declaration of Independence. To

4 clear up the confusion in a state of nature, Locke explained that it is important the group conducts its reasoning together in one place, such as a governmental institution (Waldron). By this notion, Locke contradicts Hobbes belief that absolutism is the only way.
Locke negates Hobbes beliefs with a convincing theory, however there is a void in
Locke’s argument. John Locke was actually one of the first to realize the capabilities of legislative majorities to abuse its power (Waldron). Hence, Locke fills this void in his theory.
This strengthens his theory’s assertion that the government is not created to protect ourselves from ourselves as Hobbes claimed, but rather to protect the natural rights borne by all humans from birth. Furthermore, Jeremy Waldron goes on to say, “If a legislative majority… acts against that trust, … then the whole constitution of the society is in crisis” (Waldron). Through this statement, one can infer to what extent Locke meant, when he proposed the idea of the government kept in check by the people. Giving the people authority over the government is another aspect of Locke’s argument that differs from Hobbes because Locke stated that when the government has failed to protect the liberties of the people, the people have the right to abandon this government in order to return to the state of nature to establish an improved form of government in its place. A logical explanation for this disparity is the fact that Locke was writing during the American Revolution, whereas Hobbes was writing during the English Civil War. For this reason, it is safe to assume Locke’s theory was significantly influenced by the revolution of the American colonies, which explains the dissimilarity between Locke and Hobbes’ opinion on the right of revolution and where sovereignty resides.

5
According to Locke’s perspective, the government was meant to be kept in check in a similar fashion as it did with each individual’s liberty. Locke stated that Liberty is not a license, and it is to be limited in such a manner that it does not infringe upon the liberties of others
(Waldron). Although Locke advocated for the natural rights of all people, he did profess that people do not have unlimited liberty. Furthermore, when it comes to natural rights people do not have unlimited liberty because he believed that each person is free to do what he or she wants to his or her desired extent provided that it accounts for the corresponding sum of the liberties of other people. Therefore by that logic, each person should occupy an equivalent quantity of liberty. Nonetheless, other people are not the only possible culprits for imposing on one’s liberty.
From this perspective, it is clear why Locke emphasized the importance of letting the power reside among the people. In the same way that exercising one’s liberty beyond a certain extent can infringe on another’s liberty, the government exercising its power can impose on the liberty of the people if not controlled. This is why when analyzing Locke’s theory, one may begin to conclude that this theory may be slightly more advanced than Hobbes’ theory because of the countermeasures Locke suggested in the blueprint of an ideal government. Hobbes relied more on placing trust in an absolute monarch and hopefully it would act morally.
Although Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are both distinguished political philosophers, it would be challenging to provide evidence that one holds greater value or authenticity over the other. It is important to note, Thomas Hobbes wrote during the English Civil War; a time when absolute government collapsed, and every man was pitted against every other man. Thus, Hobbes had the impression that absolutism was the only rational form of sovereignty. On the subject of

6 sovereignty, John Locke wrote that it resides in the people, which is conceivable given the circumstances and time frame of the American Revolution during which Locke was writing.
Thence, one should simply conclude that even though these two men differ in several minute ways, there is one matter that is for certain. Both political philosophers derived the necessity for man to have a form of social contract preferably in the form of a government.

7
Works Cited
"Absolutism | Political System."
Encyclopedia Britannica Online
. Encyclopedia Britannica, 3
Feb. 2014. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.
Hobbes, Thomas. "The Leviathan."
The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
. Oregon State University,
n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.
"Job 41:1 "Can You Pull in Leviathan with a Fishhook or Tie down Its Tongue with a Rope?"
Bible Hub
. Biblos.com, 2014. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.
Philpott, Daniel. "Sovereignty: An Introduction and Brief History."
Journal of International
Affairs
48.2 (1995): 353+.
Questia School. Web. 10 Apr. 2015.
Strauss, Leo.
The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis. Trans. Elsa M.
Sinclair. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1952.
Questia School
. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
Waldron, Jeremy.
God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations of John Locke's Political
Thought.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge UP, 2002.
Questia School. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
Zagorin, Perez.
Hobbes and the Law of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2009.
Questia
School. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.