A Review of the Social Political Theories of Hobbes and Locke

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both argue that a legitimate authority receives its power from the consent of the individuals who submit to it; even then, the individuals retain certain inalienable rights. Both have differing and yet similar views of what is consented and the limits that invalidate said consent. The rights retained after consent to be governed also have distinguishable aspects. In conclusion, a preferential analysis of the two theorists will be prepared.

Thomas Hobbes describes consent as agreeing to a contract. In Leviathan, he states that a contract is the declaration renouncing or transferring of a man's right. He, the man, may enter into a contract by his words, his actions, or a combination of the two. When scrutinizing the actions of a man entering into a contract, Hobbes looks for one or both types of acquiescence; those are express or inference. Express acquiescence is affirmed through use of "words spoken with understanding of what they signify" (p. 193). Inference, however, is either through the words or actions of the individual that are not specifically meant to convey consent or rejection, but can be assumed through correlation. According to Hobbes these are "the bonds, by which men are bound and obliged" (p. 192).

When a man consents to a contract, he is transferring his right to freedom in the state of nature, or state of war. Such a contract where a man transfers his right along with other men is referred to as a covenant, or pact. A covenant is an act of the general will, it is usually made for mutual security against a common enemy. However, there can be no covenant unless there is evidence of a potential threat, otherwise for what good would the covenant be.

Hobbes states that men can be liberated from their covenants two ways, either by performance or by being granted forgiveness. Performing the acts one has agreed to "is the natural end of obligation" (p. 198). Forgiveness is "the restitution of [the] liberty" (p. 198) man has given up in his quest to seek protection.

Entering into a contract for Hobbes is also a voluntary act, no matter the circumstance. Should a man be held at gunpoint and asked, "Your money or your life?" He is most likely to give up his money and hope that his life is spared. Hobbes says that this is a valid covenant and is a binding contract because the man always had the freedom of choice, he just valued his life more than his money. This is because the end result will always be of some good to the man, and those around him.

There are few instances in which Hobbes will recognize that a covenant is void. He first concedes that a covenant may be void if a man transfers his right to one man and then attempts to pass it again to someone else. In the latter instance he cannot transfer his right; it is no longer his own to give up because he has already disavowed it. A covenant that vows not to defend oneself is also void in the eyes of Hobbes. This would cause problems with internal logic, because Hobbes' reason for entering into a covenant is to protect oneself. One can assume that Hobbes was thinking rationally when he stated the final circumstance in which a covenant is invalid; a covenant to accuse oneself. This case is both void in nature, and in a civil state. In nature, it is invalid because "every man is judge, there is no place for accusation" (p. 199) and in the civil state, after the accusation comes punishment, to which a man is not expected to submit.

In entering into a covenant under Hobbes' theory, a man retains only one right after he submits to be governed. This right is the right of self-preservation. This is important because it is internally logical that a man that enters into a contract in mutual defense would also retain that right in all situations. This also supports two of the instances in which a covenant is void in Hobbes' theory.

John Locke's Second Treatise dictates a limited government. He advocates consent but it varies from that of Hobbes, along with the terms of the agreement and its limits. The focus of this paper will now turn to Locke and his theory on government.

In Locke's state of nature, there is a clear set of natural laws that present his natural rights and duties. The rights are the right to preservation of "life, health, liberty and possessions" (II, p. 5); and the duties are all those in which "no one ought to harm another" (II, p. 5) man's right to the same. Individuals in the state of nature also have the right to enforce these laws and punish those who violate them. They obtain this right because the laws must be upheld, and in the state of nature there is no institution to oversee it.

Natural law as a source of law and order is somewhat of a logical contradiction, this is because natural law focuses on the lack of law and order. Thus, when looking to natural law for guidance, there are many imperfections, such as any man can be a judge in the state of nature, even of himself.

In contradiction to Hobbes, Locke's state of nature is not a state of war. In the state of nature rights and laws are known and are binding on moral individuals. War is not a condition, as it is for Hobbes, but an act or intention of action. However, the state of nature may deteriorate into war if laws are "subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man" (IV, p. 15). To avoid such occurrences, men do consent to a civil society.

Individuals, according to Locke, seek to protect their fundamental rights and thus consent to civil society to make it legitimate. There are two types of consent for Locke; explicit and tacit. Explicit consent is essentially the same as express consent, it is the undeniable direct acceptance of a law. Silence presumes tacit consent; as does social interaction, adherence to laws, the apparent ownership of property and the mere use of money.

The society is governed by general will and is subject to their discretion. The individuals agree to obey the laws, and they cede the right to punish to the state, as long as the state protects the fundamental rights of individuals and respects the general will. The society may only be dissolved if it is not doing its job to protect said rights.

Preferentially, there is a slight dilemma. Thomas Hobbes is extremely logical and methodical, and that is a very key point to why I am very drawn to his theory. Its internal logic is nearly perfect and that is of huge importance; especially if one is to attempt to live by a theory. So that I may not find out in the long run that all I have been living for is a lie, similar to J.S. Mill being brought up on Jeremy Bentham's theory. On the other hand, he is very distrusting of the human race, whereas I am a bit more optimistic and thus would not prefer to live under Hobbes' theory. However, John Locke's theory on government is and has been shown to be a great building block for governments; case in point, the United States Constitution and Thomas Jefferson's blatant plagiarism of "life, liberty and property," from Locke's Second Treatise. I believe that Locke is not quite as thorough and methodological as Hobbes, but his ideals are better suited to mine.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651. Ed. C.B. Macpherson. London: Penguin, 1985.

Locke, John. "An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government." Social Contract. 947. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960. 1-143.