Hobbes and Locke; a comparison
Summary
TLDRThis video explores the philosophical similarities and differences between Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two prominent social contract theorists. While both discuss the laws of nature and the state of nature, Hobbes views the natural state as a war-driven necessity for a strong sovereign, whereas Locke sees it as governed by laws, leading to a need for a limited government. The video delves into their contrasting views on the social contract, the transfer of powers, and the type of government each theorist advocates, offering insights into their distinct contributions to political thought.
Takeaways
- ๐ Hobbes and Locke are both social contract theorists who discuss the laws of nature and the state of nature.
- ๐ Hobbes views the law of nature as a directive to protect oneself and seek peace if possible, but to use war if necessary, while Locke sees it as a guide to not harm oneself or others.
- ๐ณ For Hobbes, the state of nature is a state of war, 'nasty, brutish, and short,' necessitating escape for self-preservation. Locke, however, sees it as governed by laws of nature, not a moral void but inconvenient.
- ๐ค Hobbes believes in a single social contract that forms society and creates sovereignty, whereas Locke envisions a two-stage contract: one for community and another for government formation.
- ๐๏ธ Locke supports a limited government that respects individual rights, in contrast to Hobbes, who argues for absolute sovereignty where the government has unlimited power.
- ๐ซ According to Locke, individuals in the state of nature have limited rights due to the laws of nature, which they cannot transfer to the government, unlike Hobbes who believes all rights are transferable.
- โ Hobbes uses the social contract to justify obedience to any government, aiming to reconcile Royalists with Cromwell's regime, while Locke uses it to justify the replacement of James II with William and Mary.
- ๐ The transfer of powers in Hobbes' view is absolute, giving the government the right to do anything, but in Locke's view, it is limited to what is necessary for the protection of life, liberty, and property.
- ๐ก๏ธ Locke argues for a government that protects individual rights and property, which aligns with his belief in the state of nature being less harsh and more governed by reason and natural law.
- ๐๏ธ The differences between Hobbes and Locke reflect their distinct historical contexts and purposes, with Hobbes focusing on stability and Locke on individual liberties and the right to change governments.
Q & A
What is the main focus of the video on Hobbes and Locke?
-The video focuses on the similarities and differences between the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, particularly their views on the laws of nature, the state of nature, and the social contract.
According to the video, how do both Hobbes and Locke define the laws of nature?
-Both Hobbes and Locke believe that reason helps us uncover the laws of nature. For Hobbes, the law of nature is about protecting oneself, seeking peace if possible, and using the advantages of war if peace cannot be found. Locke, on the other hand, interprets the laws of nature as not harming oneself or others, and not infringing on anyone's person, property, or liberty.
What is the state of nature like in Hobbes' view?
-In Hobbes' view, the state of nature is described as 'nasty, brutish, and short,' a state of war where it is a moral void and a place of constant fear and danger.
How does Locke's perspective on the state of nature differ from Hobbes'?
-Locke sees the state of nature as governed by the laws of nature, not as a moral void. It is inconvenient and not necessarily pleasant, but it is not the constant state of war that Hobbes describes. The state of war for Locke is possible if someone attacks you, but the state of nature itself is not a state of war.
What is the nature of the social contract according to Hobbes?
-For Hobbes, the social contract is a single agreement that binds people together as a society and simultaneously creates the sovereignty of the state. It is a one-time event that forms both community and government, and once made, cannot be undone without reverting to the state of nature.
How does Locke's concept of the social contract differ from Hobbes'?
-Locke views the social contract as a two-stage process. The first contract forms the political community, and the second allows for the establishment of government based on majority opinion. This means that according to Locke, it is possible to change the form of government without returning to the state of nature.
What are the implications of Hobbes' and Locke's views on the transfer of powers to the government?
-Hobbes believes that since we have absolute freedom in the state of nature, we transfer all our rights to the government, giving it the right to do anything. Locke, however, argues that since our actions in the state of nature are limited by the laws of nature, we cannot transfer rights that we never had, leading to a limited form of government.
What type of government does Hobbes advocate for?
-Hobbes advocates for an absolute form of government where sovereignty is absolute, and the government has the right to do anything because the people have consented to it and authorized its actions.
What form of government does Locke argue for, and why?
-Locke argues for a limited form of government that will not interfere with certain rights, such as liberty, property, and life, because these rights are protected by the laws of nature and were not transferred to the government.
How does the video suggest the historical context influenced Hobbes' and Locke's ideas on the social contract?
-The video implies that Hobbes was trying to justify obedience to the government, including Cromwell's regime, while Locke was justifying the removal of James II and the installation of William and Mary, reflecting the different political contexts they were addressing.
What is the key takeaway from the video about the differences between Hobbes and Locke?
-The key takeaway is that despite using similar concepts like the laws of nature and the social contract, Hobbes and Locke have fundamentally different views on the extent of government power and the nature of the state of nature, leading to contrasting ideas about the ideal form of government.
Outlines
๐ Introduction to Hobbes and Locke's Philosophies
This paragraph introduces the comparison between two prominent political philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It highlights their similarities as social contract theorists and their differing views on the laws of nature and the state of nature. Hobbes is portrayed as advocating for a self-preservationist approach in the state of nature, where peace is sought only when possible, and war is embraced when necessary. In contrast, Locke's interpretation of the laws of nature is more expansive, advocating for non-harm and respect for others' life, liberty, and property. The paragraph sets the stage for a deeper exploration of their contrasting ideas on the social contract and the nature of government.
๐๏ธ The Social Contract and Government in Hobbes vs. Locke
This paragraph delves into the distinct social contract theories of Hobbes and Locke, emphasizing their different approaches to the formation of government and the transfer of powers. Hobbes views the social contract as a singular agreement that forms both society and the sovereign, with an absolute transfer of rights to the government, leading to an absolute sovereignty. Locke, however, sees the social contract as a two-stage process: one to form the political community and another to establish the government, allowing for a limited government that respects individual rights. The paragraph also discusses the implications of their theories on the type of government each philosopher supports, with Hobbes advocating for an absolute government and Locke for a limited one that does not infringe upon fundamental rights.
Mindmap
Keywords
๐กSocial Contract
๐กLaws of Nature
๐กState of Nature
๐กHobbes
๐กLocke
๐กAbsolute Sovereignty
๐กLimited Government
๐กSelf-Preservation
๐กProperty Rights
๐กMoral Void
Highlights
Hobs and Lock are both social contract thinkers with key themes in the history of political thought.
Both Hobs and Lock discuss the laws of nature and the state of nature.
Hobs views the law of nature as a directive to protect oneself, even through war if necessary.
Lock interprets the laws of nature more broadly, emphasizing non-harm and respect for others' person, property, and liberty.
Hobs describes the state of nature as 'nasty, brutish, and short', a state of war.
Lock sees the state of nature as governed by laws of nature, not a moral void, but inconvenient.
The social contract for Hobs is a single contract creating society and state sovereignty.
Lock's social contract is two-staged: one for community and another for government formation based on majority opinion.
Hobs argues for absolute sovereignty, with no right to complain about government actions.
Lock advocates for a limited government that respects individual liberties and properties.
The transfer of powers in Hobs' view is total, while in Lock's it is limited by the laws of nature.
Hobs' social contract is aimed at obedience to the government, while Lock's is about changing governments.
The video contrasts Hobs' and Lock's theories, showing how similar concepts lead to different political philosophies.
The discussion highlights the historical context and the purpose behind Hobs' and Lock's social contract theories.
The video concludes by emphasizing the differences in the type of government each philosopher proposes.
Transcripts
hi there Hobs and lock are in some ways
quite similar but in some ways quite
different some people regard loock quite
rightly I think as being the poor man's
Hobs but what I wanted to do in this
short little video is just show you the
similarities and the differences between
Hobs and lock because you'll see key
themes emerge the history of political
thought from them they're both social
contract thinkers they both talks about
the laws of nature they talk about the
state of nature and so on and so forth
so I just thought I'd try and unpick the
differences between the two thinkers
right firstly on the laws of nature
remember both thinkers say that our
reason helps us uncover laws of nature
in the state of nature now for Hobs the
law of nature is simply protect yourself
we we find the law
that we should seek peace in so far as
it's possible but if we can't seek peace
or we can't find peace we should use all
the advantages of war the best way to
protect yourself is to seek peace for a
social contract if you can't do that use
all the advantages of War that's what
the laws of nature tells us now don't
get me wrong hob says that this pushes
us towards Civil Society but at the end
of the day you have to protect
yourself Lo has a much Bolder
interpretation of the laws of nature
it's bigger thicker as some people say
in political Theory circles uh and that
is is that we shouldn't do anything
that's harmful to us or to anyone else
and we shouldn't injure anyone in their
person their property or their Liberty
consequently the laws of nature under
locks thinking provides a much bigger
guidance to how we should live our lives
than under Hobs so both thinkers use
this concept of the law of nature but
they use it in different ways now
secondly of course is the state of
nature uh the state of nature for Hobs
is nasty brutish and short it's a state
of War of all men against all other men
and is a complete moral void uh it is a
dismal Dreadful place which we need to
get out of in order Pro to protect
ourselves L also talks about aat of
nature but he uses it in a completely
different way first first off a state of
nature and a state of War are two
separate um issues right the state of
nature is governed by the laws of nature
which I mentioned earlier on which are
you shouldn't uh you shouldn't uh attack
anyone's Liberty their property or their
person therefore it isn't this moral
void of which um hob speaks of um it
it's inconvenient and it's not
necessarily particularly nice but
nonetheless uh the inconvenience of R
from interpreting the laws of nature and
punishing transgressors rather than
constant fear of death um as I mentioned
earlier the state of war is possible in
Lock's thoughts if someone attacks you
and then you have a right to defend
yourself so between two people there can
be a state of War but the state of
nature is not a state of War for L it's
not nearly as bad I say it's
inconvenient we get fed up of
interpreting the laws of nature and so
we want to transfer these powers to a
civil Authority but it's not nearly as
bad now the social contract obviously
Hobs and Locker social contract thinkers
so it's quite important to uh note the
differences in the nature of the social
contract now first off for Hobbs it's a
one trick issue there is one contract
that contract links us together as being
a people capable of making uh political
decisions it's it sort of forms us as a
society and at the same time creates the
sovereignty of the artificial person of
the state or the state so it's simple
for hops you have death in the state of
nature or a government right if you you
cannot um decide to get rid of one
Monarch and put in another or put in uh
one government and get rid of another
without going back into the state of
nature uh because it's one contract that
links us together as a as a society
capable of making such decisions and
also form
sovereignty uh for lock it's a two-stage
process right there is one contract that
links us together as a political
community and another which then uh can
make the form of government based upon a
majority opinion um as a consequence of
this for Lo and bear in mind the
difference in purpose between Hobs and
LA on on the social contract here Hobs
is using the social contract to show why
everybody should obey the government
which they have uh and in his instance
he's trying to show why royalists should
engage with all ofer cromwell's regime
even though they've just fought with him
Lo is trying to show how we can get rid
of one government uh that of James II
and put in another uh William and Mary
of orange uh so consequently he sees it
differently so you can get rid of our
system of government according to Lo
without going back into the state of
nature whereas for Hobs you can't do
that so this is what it's quite
important to see in Hobs and lock how
for Hobs it is one contract forms
government and Community for Lo it's two
one forms the community one forms the
government now it follows that the
transferral of powers is different in
Hobbs and lock both Hobs and lock agree
that a uh a state can only have the
powers which people transfer to it via a
social contract however they differ in
the powers that we have um according to
uh Hobs we have a right in a state of
nature to Everything Everything Is Ours
absolute freedom we then
transfer these powers to the government
so it follows that the government has
the right to do anything for Lo we don't
have a right to do anything uh in the
state of nature in the state of nature
our action is limited by the laws of
nature so we don't have a right to
anyone's property we don't have a right
to attack anyone's Liberty and we don't
have a right to um uh threaten uh
anyone's um you know individual personal
freedom so it follows from that that we
can't transfer those rights to
government uh because we never had them
in the first place which then leads us
on to the final point I want to raise
which is a difference in the type of
government that Hobs and lot put forward
for hob sovereignty is absolute we
cannot complain about anything the
government has done uh because we have
consented to it and we have authorized
their actions um we've transferred our
right to everything to the government
and therefore the government has a right
to do anything right for Lo however we
never had the right to interfere with
people's Liberty their property or their
life and it follows therefore that the
states doesn't either uh and as a
consequence of that Lo is arguing for a
limited form of government which won't
affect certain things so there it is it
it's kind of a an interesting example in
the history of political thought that
you have two thinkers relatively close
historically speaking using similar
Concepts all the way through and an
overall similar shell to an argument yet
quite different when you actually get
down to the content of it uh and
hopefully this video has given you a
little insight on precisely what those
differen
are
Browse More Related Video
The Social Contract - Thomas Hobbes & John Locke
็คพไผๅฅ็ด่ชฌ๏ผใธใฃใใฏใปใซใฝใผ ใใฟใใชใฎๆๆใจใใฏใฎๆๆใฎ็ต็็นใใ46-7 COTEN RADIO ๆฐไธปไธป็พฉใฎๆญดๅฒ็ทจ7ใ
Hobbes vs. Locke vs. Rousseau - Social Contract Theories Compared
Unit 1 Intro to Ideologies - Lesson 3: Enlightenment Philosophers
POLITICAL THEORY - John Locke
Lockeโs Political Philosophy: Key Concepts
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)