Locke and Hobbes : Natural Rights

These social contract theorists are not to be considered harmonious in their ideas towards conditions in a state of war and how the social contract should be constructed to escape the former. Hobbes’ state of war has rational humans living in a chaotic environment when laws are inexistent.

Locke, on the contrary, believes humans would be reasonable, like Hobbes suggested, but they would live more cooperatively, with very few conflicts. Locke’s critique of Hobbes’ state of nature is fallible; it doesn’t completely address the issues of stability, security, and knowledge. Therefore, Locke doesn’t supply a good enough counter argument to claim his own theory superior.

Locke claims that there is stability in the state of nature, just some “inconvenient” problems in the community that need to be overcome. On the other side of the spectrum, Hobbes describes his version as having no cooperation whatsoever, even for the sake of camaraderie. There is no sense of commonality except for the fact that they are all fearful of the actions of all individuals that their paths may cross. Locke chooses to believe in the good of man: “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which oblige every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Locke 271).

Hobbes believes that man is more self-indulgent and greedy: “the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgment and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto” (Hobbes, 59). What Locke fails to realize, or that doesn’t adhere to the fact, that why would there be only a few “snags” of the fabric of society, when many people could just assume that other individuals would “follow the rules” which gives them the advantage of gaining commodities at the expense of law abiding people. Those people that follow natural laws are more vulnerable to be taken advantaged of by those who see a profit in their horizon by breaching of natural rights, due to the lack of awareness of the abiding of natural laws.

It would be more likely that the general public would be fearful of unrestrained parasites of a society to nefariously neglect others’ natural rights, to simply ignore them; they would choose to protect themselves and their property, and in doing so, be working towards personal gains. With that said, due to this anxiety towards cheaters of life, the populace would want to participate in the commonwealth more so than just a few “inconveniences” that may arise. If there were only some evildoers, it wouldn’t cause people to jump on the social contract bandwagon when the world around them is just as it is. If the individuals, for the most part, were rational enough to know their own natural laws and that “punishing aggressors” in a way that fits the crime, why would a government be needed? People aren’t rational enough on their own; hence, a government is needed to protect those that need to be protected.