ENGL 298 B: Intermediate Writing Social Sciences   Autumn 2011, University of Washington

Out of all the differences and similarities between Hobbes and Locke, I found the issue on the right to rebel one of the most interesting aspects.   In studying more about this issue,  I realized the two see the right to rebel in completely different ways.   Hobbes asserts that the sovereign has every right to issue peace within the society according to his or her judgment.  When it comes to the citizens, Hobbes says citizens have the right to self-preservation.  In other words, citizens have the right to preserve their individual lives.  Hobbes believes that citizens, however, do not have the right to judge whether or not the government is violating natural law.   Thus, it also shows us how Hobbes does not believe citizens have the right to rebel against the sovereign if they are acting illegitimately once they have entered into the Leviathan.

Locke believes the role of government is to enforce natural law.  He disagrees with Hobbes in the fact that citizens always have the right to judge whether or not the government is enforcing natural law effectively.  If the government is not enforcing natural law, he says that the citizens may have the right to rebel.  He says the government does not have the right to restrict natural law or to violate legitimacy.  He believes this because people enter into the society in order to have their property protected and they trust the sovereign to ensure their natural rights.  I was very confused at this concept at first.  After careful study, I think I now understand their different views from a clearer perspective.  In short, Hobbes does not believe the citizens have the right to rebel against the sovereign whereas Locke believes the citizens may have the right to rebel against the sovereign if they are acting illegitimately (focus on Chapter XIX).