Hobbes and Locke; a comparison

Summary

This 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

• 📚 Hobbes and Locke are both social contract theorists who discuss the laws of nature and the state of nature.
• 🔍 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.
• 🌳 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.
• 🤝 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.
• 🏛️ Locke supports a limited government that respects individual rights, in contrast to Hobbes, who argues for absolute sovereignty where the government has unlimited power.
• 🚫 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.
• ✅ 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.
• 🔑 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.
• 🛡️ 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.
• 🏞️ 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

00:00

📚 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.

05:02

🏛️ 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.

Keywords

💡Social Contract

The social contract is a philosophical concept that suggests individuals in a state of nature voluntarily give up some personal freedoms to form a society and establish a government. In the video, both Hobbes and Locke are described as social contract thinkers, using this concept to explain how societies and governments are formed. Hobbes views the contract as a way to establish a strong, unified government, while Locke sees it as a two-stage process that first forms a community and then determines the form of government.

💡Laws of Nature

The laws of nature, as discussed in the video, are principles that are inherent and can be discovered through reason. They are used by both Hobbes and Locke to describe how individuals should behave in a state of nature. For Hobbes, the law of nature is about self-preservation, while Locke sees it as a guide that prohibits harming oneself or others, thus providing a more comprehensive moral framework.

💡State of Nature

The state of nature refers to a hypothetical condition that existed before the formation of societies and governments. In the video, Hobbes describes it as a 'nasty, brutish, and short' state of war, where life is a moral void and survival is the primary concern. In contrast, Locke views the state of nature as governed by the laws of nature, not a state of war, but rather an inconvenient condition that leads people to form societies for better governance.

💡Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes is a prominent political philosopher mentioned in the video. His view on the social contract and the state of nature is that individuals in a state of nature would opt for a strong, absolute government to escape the constant threat of violence and death. The video contrasts his ideas with those of Locke, highlighting the differences in their understanding of the social contract and the powers transferred to the government.

💡Locke

John Locke is another key political philosopher discussed in the video. Unlike Hobbes, Locke argues for a limited government that respects the natural rights of individuals, such as life, liberty, and property. The video explains that Locke's view of the social contract allows for the possibility of changing governments without reverting to the state of nature, which is a significant departure from Hobbes' perspective.

💡Absolute Sovereignty

Absolute sovereignty, as mentioned in the context of Hobbes' philosophy, refers to the idea that the government has unlimited power and authority over its subjects. The video explains that, for Hobbes, the social contract results in the people transferring all their rights to the government, thereby granting it absolute sovereignty and the right to do anything to maintain order and protect the people.

💡Limited Government

Limited government is a concept where the power of the government is restricted and defined by law. In the video, Locke's philosophy is described as advocating for a limited government that cannot interfere with the natural rights of individuals. This is in stark contrast to Hobbes' view of absolute sovereignty and highlights Locke's belief in the importance of checks and balances on governmental power.

💡Self-Preservation

Self-preservation is a central theme in Hobbes' philosophy, as discussed in the video. It refers to the idea that individuals have a natural right to protect themselves and their well-being. In the state of nature, according to Hobbes, this right justifies the use of any means necessary, including war, to ensure survival, which is a key reason for entering into a social contract.

💡Property Rights

Property rights are the rights of individuals to own and control their possessions. The video explains that, for Locke, property rights are protected by the laws of nature in the state of nature, and these rights are not transferable to the government. This is a significant point of divergence from Hobbes, who believes that all rights, including those to property, are transferred to the government through the social contract.

💡Moral Void

A moral void refers to a situation where there is no moral framework or values to guide behavior. In the video, Hobbes' description of the state of nature as a moral void is contrasted with Locke's view. For Hobbes, the absence of a moral framework in the state of nature necessitates the establishment of a strong government to enforce order, whereas Locke sees the state of nature as governed by natural laws that provide moral guidance.

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