Skip to main content
Loading Explore guides…
Hobbes vs Locke Political Philosophy · Acedra
Home
Explore
Philosophy
Hobbes vs Locke Political Philosophy
Sign in to save
Chat
If YouTube asks you to sign in, open the video on YouTube.
Watch on YouTube
Reload player
Transcript
61 segments
Copy
Hide video
0:00
the 17th century was a period of political instability in England. Competing claims to the throne led to the outbreak of Civil War, the beheading of a King, and the brief establishing of a de-facto Republic. It should come as no surprise then that philosophy would also question the role of government and how politics should be conducted. But even in this, a conflict arose as to what such government should look like .Two distinct figures emerged
0:25
that embodied the two opposing viewpoints, and between them, would set the foundations for political philosophy in 17th century England and Beyond. This is the philosophical confrontation between Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, and this is one of philosophy's greatest stories.
0:58
Despite being from different generations with an age gap of 46 years, Thomas Hobbes, born in 1558, and John Locke, born in 1632, both lived through a tumultuous period in English history, marked by civil war, the dissolution of the monarchy, and its subsequent restoration. While the two are popularly compared and pitted against each other in the history of philosophy as having opposing viewpoints regarding the politics of government during the early Enlightenment,
1:25
the two never really came into contact, at least publicly, during their lifetimes. Locke never mentioned Hobbes in any of his published Works, although evidence suggests he was well versed in Hobbes' work, including owning a copy of Hobbes' most famous work "Leviathan." The fact that they lived in close proximity to each other for many years, as well as having friends in the same circles of nobility means that they will have had many opportunities to meet, but as such
1:54
evidence of this is not known to exist. As such it is best to explore their ideas individually, before drawing any comparisons between them and this is what we shall do in this episode. Although both men wrote on a number of philosophical subjects, it is their political philosophy which draws them into conflict, and again this is what we shall be focusing on. Indeed, it is on this subject that arguably their two most famous works were released:
2:20
Hobbes' "Leviathan" published in 1651, and John Locke's "Two Treaties of Government" published in 1689. It is on these two texts we shall base our analysis of these two philosophers.
2:35
Thomas Hobbes, the son of a vicar, began his life in relatively unremarkable fashion, although eventually ended up studying at a private school and eventually the University of Oxford. While there he became increasingly hostile to traditional philosophy particularly those who attempted to incorporate the works of Aristotle into Christianity. After graduating, he went to Europe and learned of the new Sciences being practiced there:
3:02
his meeting of these scientists, including Galileo himself, would have a profound effect on his philosophy. He returned to England in 1637 to a country bitterly divided by civil war: the escalating tensions forced Hobbes to flee in 1641 to Europe once again, where he would find many of his friends had also fled. These were the Royalists, the side of the civil war who supported the right of the king as absolute power, rather than the Parliamentarians,
3:32
or Roundheads, who favoured the rule of parliament. Among those he tutored while he was there was the Prince of Wales, Charles, who would become King Charles II of England in 1649. During this time in Europe, he worked on his most significant work "Leviathan," published in 1651. This extensive treatise is a response to the English Civil War, and essentially makes the argument that without the power of an absolute monarch to keep society in check, human passions
4:02
will always end in conflict and undo everything they've built. From the beginning of Leviathan, Hobbes shows he has been influenced by the new sciences: the first part is almost exclusively dedicated to defining a multitude of essential terms, in order to build a solid foundation on which to build his own philosophy, and leaving no ambiguity within them. This foundation is further cemented by a clear reference to Galileo's theory of motion: "For seeing life is but a motion of
4:33
limbs, the beginning whereof is in some principal path within; why may we not say that all automata (engines that move themselves by springs and wheels as doth a watch) have an artificial life? For what is the heart, but a spring; and the nerves, but so many strings; and the joints, so many wheels, giving motion to the whole body, such as was intended by the artificer? Art goes yet further, imitating that rational and most excellent work of nature, man."
5:07
This is quite a provocative statement and one which deviates from his contemporaries: while Descartes used a similar foundation with regards to human bodies, he stopped short of giving science reins over the operations of the Soul. Hobbes has no problem applying a definition of life that does not separate Mankind from their world. Also here, we see the influence of Galileo's theory of motion calling life "but the motion of limbs,"
5:33
putting the science of motion at the heart of his philosophy. The essential part of Galileo's theory of motion is that an object remains in motion until it is displaced by another object in motion, and this is applied by Hobbes to the senses so that a person experiences a sense until it is displaced by a new one, and memory is just this lingering and displacement of sense. Moving on, the basis of Hobbes' theory of government must again begin at the absolute
6:03
foundation: what is the basis of man for whom government is to govern? What are the defining traits of man that government must regulate? Hobbes' position of the constitution of humankind is that everyone is born into a state of nature, which consists in their having certain passions and drives: every person is created with these passions but every person's passions are directed towards different things: we all have different tastes, opinions, and so on. This difference,
6:35
naturally, leads to conflict between people that wish to direct the motion of society for their own benefit, rather than another's. The result of this, Hobbes claims in perhaps the most famous paragraph of the book, is that "Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withal.
7:06
In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worse of all, continual
7:34
fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Left to their own devices, the natural state of man will produce no society, no industry, nothing. Just this life which is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. it is no life at all. In order to have a life that is peaceful and prosperous, people must consent to be a part of a society, within which an overwhelming independent power keeps them all in
8:12
check. this is Hobbes' Leviathan, which takes the form of an absolute monarch who wants for nothing, and so is solely driven by reason, with no need to resort to their passions which would ultimately lead to their ruin. The constitution of this Leviathan is similar to the human body: as mentioned earlier, we may consider a singular human body to be composed of many moving parts; these parts drive our passions towards different things, resulting in conflict and disunity when
8:44
multiple humans come together to form a society. They themselves join together to form one body, which is the Leviathan: a body more powerful than any of its parts. Whereas the human body can affect motion of any other, they cannot move the Leviathan it is a part of. The Leviathan is an absolute governor of its parts and it must be so: it must want for nothing, for if it is driven by these passions, it will fall into the same trap as the bodies which constitute it.
9:15
In this sense it is independent, but it must also unify those bodies which form it: amplifying their power. One man can move his own body, but the Leviathan can move all bodies it is a part of. An important point to make here is that those who make up this Leviathan are not forced into it against their will: they must consent to be ruled this way; the only alternative being the solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short life that spawns from their natural rights.
9:48
By giving up some of their natural freedoms, they gain life and liberty, and since everyone who is part of the society which is the Leviathan, has given up and gained the same rights, any dispute brought about by the passions can be adequately solved by the independent Leviathan, who does not act out of spite, greed, or jealousy, but by reason alone. Any attempt to displace the Sovereign is an attempt to displace these rights of life and Liberty from the people, according to
10:20
Hobbes, making his position on the English Civil War quite clear. The basis of Hobbes' argument is that at their core, humans are born with a natural tendency towards conflict and violence. This can only be mitigated by them consenting to be governed by an absolute power, whom a single being cannot possibly overcome by violence or their natural passions. The absolute monarch must be the one who embodies this Leviathan: their power must be absolute and immune to challenge.
10:51
This leads to the biggest problem of Hobbes' philosophy the question: if the Monarch is immune to any form of challenge or punishment, how can you stop them from abusing their power? The only answer Hobbes can give is that such a ruler will simply promise not to abuse their powers: a reason that would probably not have persuaded the Parliamentarians in the English Civil War to yield power to the monarchy. While Thomas Hobbes is most often remembered for his support of absolute rule,
11:20
this, however, overshadows a lot more of his progressive thought: he spoke out against religion being used as a means of controlling people and supported freedom of thought in this area, which had led to accusations of him being an atheist. He railed against the traditional academics of Oxford where he studied, and their reliance of Aristotle, turning instead to Galileo's new science. His incorporation of these new Sciences into his work, using strict definitions to build a
11:49
philosophy on well-defined foundations, is an excellent example of the Enlightenment synthesis of Science and philosophy. Now let us move on. On the other side of the English Civil War to the Royalists were, as mentioned, the Parliamentarians ,or Roundheads, who believe the government should be carried out by a majority rule, and they could never accept the conclusions reached by Hobbes. However, they would find a philosophy that supported
12:16
their own visions in the work of a different philosopher, in the works of one John Locke.
12:25
John Locke was born in 1632. His father was the captain of the English parliamentary guard and so even from birth he was already embroiled in the parliamentary cause. Like Hobbes, he attended the University of Oxford, but unlike him, Locke seems to have revelled in the study and culture of learning, meeting friends, acquaintances and ideas that would remain with him for much of his life. While he wrote on a number of subjects,
12:54
including medicine and epistemology, as the study of knowledge, we are again going to focus on his political thoughts, which finds its most complete form in his "Two Treatise of Government." Published in 1690, the "Two Treatises of Government" outlined the ideal form that he believed government to take the first Treatise has a very specific purpose it is a response and rebuke of "Patriarcha," a book by Sir Robert Filmer, in which he argues
13:23
that the authority to rule as an absolute monarch comes from whoever is the most direct descendant of the first man Adam that is currently alive. Locke rejects this for a number of reasons, mostly through quoting the very scripture of the Bible that Filmer bases his own position upon. There are, however, some important Clues regarding Locke's own position among this lengthy rebuttal most importantly the people must consent to who shall govern them no one can tell people
13:54
who can govern them: not even God has done that. Likewise, this logic also applies to a Father's power over their children: A Father does not have absolute dominion over their offspring: their role is as a caretaker, to raise them until they have developed their own sense of reason to consent for themselves who should govern them. This is also a rejection of Filmer's position, that if Fathers had absolute power, and everyone has a different Father, then no
14:25
Father can have absolute dominion over everyone else's children, like Filmer's logic employs
14:32
as mentioned. Locke did not mention Hobbes or his work in any of his own published work, but this rejection of absolute rule would almost certainly have been meant to apply to Hobbes' own position.
14:45
We shall move on to Locke's second treatise: of civil government, in order to build up Locke's vision of consenting functioning government. If the right of governance does not come from an absolute right to rule as Filmer, and Hobbes by proxy, envisioned, where does it come from? Lock starts with a consideration like Hobbes as to what state people are naturally born in, without any kind of society or government. Here is one of the key differences between Hobbes and Locke:
15:15
the natural state of people for Hobbes is one such that everyone has a right to claim everything, which leads to people having no means to resolve their disputes other than fighting and war, leading to a short and meaningless life. Locke, on the other hand, believes that everyone is born free. This works both ways: no one is born under someone's authority, but also that nobody is born into a position of authority with a right to rule. This freedom, Locke argues, becomes the
15:50
basis for all other rights, famously put that "all men are created equal." If freedom is the basis of all other rights, what form of government is able to enhance freedom rather than restrict it? even in the state of nature, without society or governance, we are still subject to the law as Locke writes: "The state of nature has the law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone and reason, which is that law teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal
16:25
and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions." If I have the right to life, health, liberty and property, then equally so does everybody else: if someone threatens my life, I have the right to defend myself. If someone wishes to enslave me, I have the right to refuse; the law of nature is fairly obvious on these points. With regards to property, how am I to judge what rightfully belongs to me and what belongs to another person?
17:01
The law of nature does not provide for this: property and possessions may be earned by labour, secured by contracts etc. but nature does not say that you should keep what you've worked for, and neither will it enforce a contract. As such, by people consenting to enter into a government, they provide the means to appeal to a law created by themselves, for themselves and since everyone has consented to the same laws, they can be executed fairly without prejudice.
17:34
This, of course, means that no single individual can be above the law: it must apply to everyone, even a monarch, and those judges that show prejudice must themselves be held accountable to it. With regards to the purpose of these laws, Locke famously writes: "So that, however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enhance freedom; for in all the states of created beings capable of laws where there is no law, there is no freedom;
18:09
for liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is not law. But freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists, for who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him but a liberty to depose and order as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property
18:39
within the allowance of those laws, under which he is and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own." That the law is there to preserve and enhance freedoms is Locke's key point here: by making a law punishing murder, my right to life is enhanced, and hence my freedom, for example. civil society grants us certainty about our state of being: we do not have to be constantly worrying about being attacked if there are laws against such things,
19:12
and so we may use our lives to choose what to do, rather than having to do things out of necessity: we can defend ourselves, but we cannot take revenge; that would be a matter for the law. The structure of Locke's society takes into account that everyone is given the same rights and everyone is subject to the law even the lawmakers. To this end, he separates government into three separate branches: if one branch should fail or breach the law, then the others
19:45
may have the powers to correct it. The first and perhaps most important branch is the legislative: it is assembled from a range of people who are representative of the whole Commonwealth, and as such have the power to introduce, alter, or abolish laws. These people will assemble, make laws, and then disperse: they do not gain any special privileges or powers, and will be subject to the very laws that they themselves have made.
20:14
When the laws are made the executive branch is the one which will put those laws into action and execute them. Unlike the legislative branch, which congregates to make laws and disperse, the executive power remains in place to oversee that they are carried out.
20:33
This will be the role that a monarch would play for Locke: that they remain in post but would also be subject to the laws that are written, and could be removed if they act in their own self-interest against that of the Commonwealth. Unlike Hobbes' absolute monarch, which could not be removed and cannot act in their own self-interest, because their self-interest is apparently the same as the societies, if an executive were to act against the legislative or
20:58
the people, it would be termed a justifiable act of war against the tyranny of the ruler. The executive branch would have emergency powers to create or change laws when the legislative branch cannot convene for some reason, but these would only be in cases of emergency and unforeseen circumstances, and could be undone by the legislative branch when they can next convene. The third branch is perhaps less defined by Locke, but still serves a distinct purpose:
21:27
the federative branch, as he calls it, deals with how the government should deal with things outside of itself. Locke describes the consensual coming together of multiple bodies into "one body politic," in which society moves as if it is one body, decided by the majority of the legislative. If all actions required unanimous consent then nothing would ever get done. If the Commonwealth is this singular body, then the federative power decides on matters
21:57
where this body must deal with another similar body, such as another Commonwealth, or a foreign country for example. Matters such as declaring war on another country for example would fall under the remit of the federative branch, as they're dealing with people still in the state of nature. Locke's Commonwealth is a society in which freedoms are enhanced rather than diminished, and where no persons may elevate themselves above the rule of law. The separation of powers would
22:26
form the basis of modern governments, where elective representatives would convene to make laws, and disband when a new election is called, with presidents taking the role of the executive themselves being elected Locke does not reject the role of a monarch, only that they should be subject to the law the same as everybody else and a monarch is born free the same as everyone, and thus is also free of any right to rule based on their family lineage for example.
22:54
Although we see a lot of our modern political governance in Locke's writings we should also take notes of its shortcomings. For example, his justification of slavery seems to go against his belief that everyone in society should have the same rights, but he justifies it in a roundabout complex way, saying that while everyone is born free, they can become slaves when they lose a war or are conquered, and thus the victors are entitled to reparations
23:22
in the form of making slaves of those they defeated, if they so wish.
23:28
He also tried to make the point that no one can be born a slave, so a child of slaves would not be a slave themselves, but makes no mention of how this would actually work in practice: if one is raised by enslaved parents, how does one become anything other than a slave themselves? One answer to Locke's strained justification of slavery is that he had financial investments in a slaver company, and so his rationale for slavery should certainly be considered with that in mind.
24:02
Hobbes and Locke fall on opposite sides of the English Civil War: Hobbes believed in right of absolute sovereignty and its independence to prevent the undermining of society, while Locke believed in the right of assembled representatives of the people of that society to make laws and also be subject to them although it is easy to draw a clear division between them, they also agreed on a number of points let us take a quick look at them. First, both distinguished
24:31
humans in a state of nature, and humans in a state of society, and how society would improve their quality of life. Secondly, both believe that humans needed to consent to enter into a society rather than be forced into it against their will. Third, they both conceived of the Commonwealth as a single body: Locke's "one body politic," and Hobbes' "leviathan," were one body composed of many and their governance would allow them to move as one body. Fourth, they both believed in
25:06
religious tolerance to a degree: a society should allow multiple religions because such beliefs are not the subject of the law. Hobbes considered religion that repealed to superstition as a method of control and one that dangerously evoked people's natural passions .This kind of religion interfered with the sovereign's control on society and was hence dangerous in Hobbes' vision.
25:32
Locke supported the idea of a free society as one which accepted freedom of religion although he was absolutely clear that this did not include a tolerance for atheism.
25:43
Although he advocated for this freedom of religion in another published work "A letter concerning toleration," he would specifically advocate for tolerance of Protestants, as other religions were essentially not as trustworthy for various reasons. The similarities between Hobbes and Locke are hidden beneath their different visions of political governance, but they are noteworthy. That Locke never mentioned Hobbes or commented on him in his published work perhaps suggests
26:11
Locke borrowed ideas from Hobbes but never wanted to credit him for it letters from Locke's contemporaries mention he had read Hobbes' work intently, and he owned a copy of Leviathan himself that he often carried around in his days at Oxford. The similarities of both considering society as this singular functioning body and their similar views on religion's role in society, is perhaps reason enough to have this debate of Hobbe's influence on Locke, although we cannot
26:40
reach any definitive conclusion as to the extent of it. Hobbes And Locke both set out visions of a commonwealth or society that would avoid the horrors and strife that had arisen out of the English Civil War, however their differences stem from two very different conceptions of what people in their true nature were: either enslaved to the passions they are born with, which drive them to a short and violent life, or born free without any preconceived ideas. Locke's philosophy would
27:11
ultimately provide the basis for the idea of representative democracies and the justified rebellion against tyrannical rulers. Combined with the work of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau Locke's philosophy would Inspire the French and subsequently the American Revolution following a vision of constructing a government that represented everyone equally this is especially true in the case of the latter in which Locke's philosophy of
27:36
all men being created equal and their inalienable rights of life liberty and possessions being used almost word for word in the Declaration of Independence of the United States. It is easy to overlook Hobbes as the loser in this debate but we should not dismiss his accomplishments Hobbes' incorporation of the new Sciences into a political philosophy that explains both physical matter and the bodies of nations is an ambitious accomplishment. Taken together,
28:06
Hobbes and Locke provide different positions on the role of government and its relation to its people, and such a debate undoubtedly helped Drive the development of Enlightenment thought particularly how it played a role in the society in which they lived.
Here to help you learn
Sign in to keep a private conversation with your course tutor.
Ask me anything about the material…
Sign in to chat