Locke and Hobbes : Natural Rights

As a fundamental element to his theory, Locke says that “God gave the world to men in common” (pg. 291) and He has given them their natural rights. If Locke didn’t use God as a crutch to build his argument and used reason as a basis to predict the behavior of human nature without the restrictions of common codes of conduct, then he would have made a fair argument. By invoking the human apparition of religion, he has created a more peaceful environment than that put forth by Hobbes.

Security of lives and property is a serious issue confronted by both political theorists. For Hobbes, the average individual in the state of nature is always on their guard. “If any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavor to destroy or subdue one another” (Hobbes, 56) – that is the norm for Hobbes’ state of nature. Natural laws are not effective and are not known by all, which makes it difficult to preserve life and property for those in a lawless land.

This fully defines Hobbes’ idea of “war against all” (Hobbes, 57). Knowing this, it is one of the major reasons why he abhors the idea of overthrowing any government. Locke condones Hobbes’ fears about the transgressors that may arise despite natural law being present. As a solution, Locke proposes to construct a government that is oriented around that “men are naturally free” (Locke, 336) and regulated by the people in order to preserve natural rights from which the “consent of the people” (Locke, 336) has been attained.

What comes to mind is when the line is drawn from when one person’s natural rights begin and the other stops. Surely, there must be a distinction or some limitation on natural rights in order to ensure the preservation of other being’s natural rights. But who’s to say that one person’s rights are more important than another’s? Locke doesn’t clarify as to the extent of natural laws, which are individual rights, would dominate or not over the commonwealth laws.

One might argue that the purpose of having judges to protect the laws is sufficient support to disarm any fears that anyone would hold. However, if the laws have a way to undermine natural laws of citizens, why would the laws be implemented then? Why would they be part of legislation if they harm the rights of the citizens of the commonwealth? The irony of this dilemma would pose a problem that Locke can’t pacify with just adding another branch to disperse the power anymore, for the more widening of branches of government leads to more corruption. Even though Hobbes’ idea of keeping the monarch alleviates the ills of social corruption between brethren of a state, it is more beneficial for “checks” of power to be implemented using Locke’s philosophy.

Locke makes interesting and logical arguments as to the conditions of the state of nature and his representational government. However, it seems to be less than a solid argument to undermine Hobbes’ views that have been one of the major foundations of history. Despite his popularity in literalistic America, Locke hasn’t sufficiently counter-argued Hobbes ideas for how a society should be governed. Locke’s separation of powers would lead to more corruption than a monarch ideally for the society that fits Hobbes’ philosophy.

His dependence on religion is what made his argument fallible to compare to Hobbes’ secular view of politics. Although his branches of government are sensible, his notion that God will judge those that corrupt the vulnerable is just blind hope. Thus, this “faithful” theorist falls short of countering the viewpoints of Hobbes.