Hobbes, filosofia politica

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are two of the most famous and influential social contract theorists. They use this concept to define the legitimacy of state power. Although, their theories are similar in structure they also have fundamental differences. On the other hand, Virginia Held in her work, Non-Contractual Society: A Feminist View, responds to them and presents the idea of a society with a different type of societal relations. This essay will explore the theories proposed by the three philosophers and how the agree or disagree with each other.

The social contract theory presented by both, Locke and Hobbes, has three stages, the state of nature, social contract and political state. The state of nature (or pre-political stage) refers to how people act when they are not under any political constraints.  In the social contract stage an agreement between people that were previously in the state of nature has been established, this with the purpose of forming a government. Finally, in the political state people are under a government. The legitimacy of this new government is based on the consent of the governed, the people.

Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan, his most famous piece, presents his idea of social contract as one in where a man or an assembly of men have been given absolute power to make decisions by the people. The people give up their rights to be governed.

“I authorize and give up my right or governing myself, to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him and authorize all his actions in like manner.”

(pg 322)

This is how a Commonwealth is formed. The person that has the power to decide for those in the Commonwealth is the sovereign and everyone else are his subjects (pg 332). This sovereign or supreme power and is responsible for protecting the security of the Commonwealth. He is granted absolute authority, by the people, to ensure the wellbeing of the community.

He believes that in the state of nature men are in a condition of war of everyone against everyone (pg 322). Men are animals driven by their instincts, and do not act under any type of constraints. “Every man has a right to everything, even to one’s another body” (pg 332). This is a state of absolute freedom, and this is his reason for why there can be no securities for life or anything else. For him individual rights are in danger in a state of nature and that is why people enter in a political state. He believes that every human action is self-interested, people always act to maximize their own goods (goods being whatever people desire, money, health, knowledge, etc). Because we are rational we act through calculation of our own goods.

This is why people, in the attempt to find peace and some sort of organization, renounce and transfer their rights to the sovereign. When people transfer their rights, they are in the obligation to obey the subject they have granted their rights to. “The mutual transferring of rights is called Contract” (pg 323). Disobedience to the covenant is considered injustice. By transferring their rights, Hobbes says, it is implicit that people are voluntarily accepting to be under the sovereign rules, meaning that they no longer are able proceed against them or each other with violence. The covenant provides security to people. Hobbes also talks about the use of coercive power by the sovereign to enforce the covenant.

When individuals give up some of their rights to a sovereign to be governed, this results in the establishment of the state. For Hobbes the social contract is not between people and the sovereign but only among the people, the sovereign is always above the law. This is one of the fundamental differences with Locke’s theory. Individuals recognize their rights to the sovereign and the only right that they keep is the right to live. They cannot rebel at any time because what the state or sovereign does is always “right” and in their best interest.

In Second Treatise of Government, John Locke, responds directly to the ideas presented in Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. As mentioned earlier, their structure of the social contract is the same. Although, in the state of nature, for Hobbes, all people are God creates souls that free, equal and independent and have the capacity and awareness to distinguished between what is right or wrong. They have a sense of moral values.

Locke affirms that the state of nature is a: "state of perfect freedom so that each one orders his actions and disposes of possessions and persons as he deems appropriate, within the limits of natural law without asking permission from anyone or depending on the will of no other man" (pg 366). It is at the same time a state of equality where everyone has the same power and jurisdiction, and nobody enjoys them to a greater extent than others. According to Locke's theory in this state of nature there is no succession or subordination of some people over others. Even in the state of nature he believes, humans possess moral values within their souls to know what is right or wrong. The only way people can be taken out of this natural liberty and put on the bonds of a civil society is by agreeing with one another to join and unite into a community (pg 376). They do this with the purpose of enjoying peace, being secure and living in harmony with one another in an environment where they are able and safe to enjoy their property.

When men consent to form this community or government they are agreeing to be part of this political body where they are subject to the rule of the majority. The power of the majority passes as the power of the whole (pg 376). Whoever agrees to get out of the state of nature to join this previously mentioned community is giving up all the power to the majority to rule. The legitimacy of this newly formed government lays on the consent of any freemen that had given up their natural rights and have incorporated into the society. They are obliged to demonstrate obedience to the laws of the government. in exchange the government will provide, as mentioned before, comfort, safety, a peaceful environment and security to enjoy their property.

In his model, the legislative is the supreme power of the Commonwealth versus the idea of having an absolute monarch as Hobbes suggests. The power of this legislative is “sacred and unalterable” because the of the power the community has placed on it. It has the power to make law that people are tied to obey (pg 380).

When the authorities do not respect the contract, individuals can rebel to change it. The government does not have the power to destroy, enslave or impoverish its subjects. This is one big difference to the idea proposed by Hobbes where individuals can never rebel against the sovereign because he is always right, and his actions are always just. Locke claims that it seems irrational to give one person absolute power because people will never enter voluntarily into a contract where they are subject to the will of one person that under no political constraints is an “animal” driven by their instincts and is always looking for power. Given that the contract excludes the sovereign, then this sovereign will most likely act driven by his instincts and his self-interests.

...