Which World Do We Live In?
Hobbesian or Lockean?
By Ajeng Shabrina
Thomas Hobbes leads us to understand the human natural right by going back far in the beginning. Whereas humans are created equal, there must be someone who is stronger and smarter than others. In addition, there is no law and government to “over-awe” (Hobbes 1651:83) them. Accordingly, dominion over men is necessary. According to Hobbes, there are three principal causes of quarrels: competition, diffidence, and glory. Therefore, when men live without a common power to awe them, they create a condition called war: every man against every man. It creates fear of death among them. In consequence, there is “no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes 1651:84)
Hobbes leads us to imagine where humans live without government, they will kill each other and live in fear. Thus, they need a government which can control them and protect their right to live in peace. Humans need to bow down to absolute government with the intention of reaching peacefulness. By choosing Leviathan as the title, he wants to lead us to that gigantic sea monster, Leviathan, the imaginary absolute monarch.
Hobbes’s Leviathan raises questions. When human live without government, is their natural morality short and brutish? Do they really want to kill each other? Do we really need monarch to govern us?
John Lock criticizes Hobbes and defines human nature differently. Locke defines political power as “…a right of making laws with penalties of death and consequently, all less penalties for regulating and preserving of the property and employing the force of the community in the execution of such laws and in the defense of the commonwealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good” (page 4). It is an important definition of political power because it emphasizes the defense of public good, not empowering the Monarch. This definition also leads us to the state of nature according to Locke.
According to Locke, the state of nature is a state of perfect freedom and state of equality. Locke criticizes Hobbes by saying “without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man” and “all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than one another.” (Page 4) It also means they do not need a monarch to control them because they are equal. The equality of men by nature, according to Locke, is different from Judicious Hooker’s definition. Judicious Hooker’s equality of men is more like either the Christian or the Classical concept. “He derives the great maxims of justice and charity.” (Page 5) Meanwhile, Locke’s state of nature has a law of nature to govern it. “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” (Page 5) Because of the equality and law of nature, everyone has the power to punish crime. Thus, crime is prevented from being committed again. Therefore, every man has self-preservation.
Do not harm others unless you are threatened is what Locke means by self-preservation. He lowers the standard of the state of nature, not following Hooker, Christianity, or Classical philosophers. Even though he mentions Hooker, he disagrees with him because the strong argument is based on disagreement. He follows what Machiavelli did, lowering the state of nature. So, it is more reliable and sufficient for humans.
God has given the earth to all mankind in common and reason to make use of it. Where everything has no owner, there is no private property. “…nobody has originally a private dominion exclusive of the rest of mankind in any of them…” (page 17) The rise of private property starts from when humans put their labor into it. They can gather anything to enjoy as much as they will as long as it is not spoiled. Nature also has limits. Even though God has given the earth in common, it does not mean that everything always remains in common and uncultivated. “He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational – not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious.” (Page 20) This argument implicitly criticizes Hobbes’s claim that humans will want to kill each other.
Locke allows men to have possessions (similar to Socrates). It its fine when someone has more than the other. That is because they put effort and labor into it. Moreover, they do not harm others in the process of gaining their possessions. That is human nature and human rights. Locke encourages us to be industrious, to work hard. Then the invention of money helps people to keep their possession longer. Money does not spoil or decay. He implicitly gives a syllogism. We can gather as much as we want only as long as it does not spoil. Money does not spoil. Therefore, we have a natural right to gain as much as we can through honest labor.
Locke says that humans have power “not only to preserve his property--that is, his life, liberty, and estate--against the injuries and attempts of other men…” (page 48) Here Locke turns to Hobbes, by saying “against the injuries and attempts of other man.” It shows that humans are not pretty and decent creatures. Therefore, they need law and government. Here is the difference. Locke does not follow Hobbes by giving power to a Monarch. Locke thinks that an absolute monarch “…has a power to do more hurt and wrong, it is right when he does it.” (Page 52) Locke also give an analogy. “This is to think that men are so foolish that they take care to avoid what mischiefs may be done them by polecats or foxes, but are content, nay think it safety, to be devoured by lions.” (Page 53) Polecats or foxes are other people. Absolute monarchy is the lion; it is a more dangerous beast. Therefore, we should avoid it because we will never be safe under an oppression monarchy.
“If man in the state of nature be so free...” “...he be absolute lord of his own person and possession...” “..., why will he give up his empire and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power?” (Page 70) Locke lays the foundation of liberty and equality. He is the modern philosopher for Americans. He introduces us to human rights and revokes power from oppressive government (Monarch). Now, we live in a Lockean world, where there is liberty, representative democracy, and human rights but also ‘capitalism.’