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

Zach Taylor

Paige Morgan

English 298B

MP 2 Rough Draft

            Two political theorists, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes offer reasoning and answers as to why governments exist.  Both first derive their justification from analyzing human nature.  Stemming from their interpretation of our nature they develop different arguments as to how governments form, what their function in society is, and what the formula for an ideal authority actually is.  Governments exist to keep humanity’s passions in check, to maintain the security of its citizens, and to be an unbiased mediator of disputes.  Locke and Hobbes disagree over how much authority is required for a government to effectively perform its functions, Locke favoring a more limited form, and Hobbes an authoritarian state.  While both make valid points in asserting their ideas, Locke provides a more convincing and appealing argument because humanity doesn’t need to give up all its rights in order to establish government, it’s nature isn’t violent to a point where it requires an absolute authority to keep it in check, and the people are properly represented in government.

Hobbes and Locke have different interpretations of human nature, the subsequent departure from the state of nature, and the origins of government.  Both Hobbes and Locke believe in an inherent equality of humanity.  Hobbes believes that because everyone has the ability to kill the other regardless of strength that, “Nature hath made men so equal of body and mind (74),” to Locke this equality stems from the fact that everyone is born “To all the same advantages of nature (8)”.  However this equality has different consequences in the minds of Hobbes and Locke.  Hobbes believes the three principles of quarrel in the state of nature: competition, diffidence, and glory, first derive from equality.  The sense of entitlement to everything and the equal right of everyone to secure it creates an inhospitable situation where men constantly, “Endeavor to destroy or subdue one another (75).”  Locke on the other hand believes this equality inspires man to not “Harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions (9).”  One of the biggest differences between Locke and Hobbes interpretation of human nature and the state of nature is the presence of morality.  Hobbes believes that God doesn’t exist in the state of nature and as a result, neither does morality.  Locke on the contrary, asserts that God and morality exist, obligating humanity to “preserve the rest of mankind” and “punish the transgressors of the law of nature” (9).  Because there isn’t a sense of morality, and everyone is constantly warring in Hobbes’ state of nature, life is characterized by violence, insecurity, and discord.  Life in Locke’s state of nature isn’t nearly as awful.  Unlike Hobbes people aren’t under constant threat from one another, and enjoy rights to health, liberty, and property.  However in Locke’s state of nature there’s always the potential for violence and war to break out at any moment.  Because of the right of individuals to punish those who break the law of nature, property rights are insecure and life becomes a state of “enmity and destruction.”(14).  People disproportionately enforce the law of nature because there isn’t a common superiority to properly judge disputes.  Both Hobbes and Locke deduce that through reason humanity comes to the conclusion that peace is desirable and that a common superior authority is necessary in order to ensure a safe and fair environment to live in.

While Hobbes and Locke agree that because the state of nature isn’t ideal, government comes to existence out of necessity.  They nonetheless have slightly different views as to how an authority becomes established.  Hobbes first brings up points about natural laws that are designed to prevent man from doing anything that is, “Destructive of his life or taketh away the means of preserving the same (79).”  These natural laws, founded on reason, lay the foundation of a commonwealth, which people form through mutual covenants with one another.  The covenant entails a “mutual transferring of right (82)”, where a group of individuals give up their right to govern themselves and consent to a sovereign who promises to commit to the “common peace and safety (109),” of its populace.  Locke first affiliates humanity’s emergence into society and the origins of government with God having put man under obligations of “necessity and convenience (42).”  Man couldn’t obtain a life of convenience in the state of nature and thus, like Hobbes, agrees with others to form a community or government in order to enjoy properties, a secure life, and mediate disputes.  The biggest difference in Hobbes and Locke’s take on how a government comes to be, lies in the commonwealths between men.  In Hobbes’ commonwealth, individuals give up their right to everything and most importantly the right to govern themselves.  Individuals in Locke’s only give up their right to punish those who break the law of nature.  The stronger sense of sacrifice in Hobbes commonwealth comes from how much more violent his state of nature was than Locke’s.  The subtle differences in Locke and Hobbes establishment of government subsequently lead to their obvious differences on governmental power and legitimacy.

As mentioned earlier, Locke favors a limited form of government whereas Hobbes favors an authoritarian state.  For Hobbes the authoritarian state is a necessity to preserve stability and uphold the contract of the commonwealth.  The sovereign, or the “mortal god (108),” according to Hobbes has so much power to “conform the wills of them all to peace at home and mutual aid against enemies abroad, (109)”.  Sovereign power is unquestionable, as those in the commonwealth have become the authors of whatever the sovereign does.  His actions reflect the will of the people.  In doing this Hobbes provides an argument for a consent-based form of legitimacy.  Because of the fact that those in the commonwealth consented to the power of the sovereign, they effectively lose the right to judge the actions of the sovereign.  This runs contradictory to Locke’s view of legitimacy and the power of government.  Locke’s government is limited; it doesn’t require absolute power to effectively perform its responsibilities.  Those responsibilities include deterring people from harming their own lives or the lives of others, be the sole enforcer of natural law, and be an unbiased mediator of disputes.  Unlike Hobbes where the covenant between individuals doesn’t include the sovereign, the contract between citizens and government in Locke entails mutual obligations.  Government is held to a standard by its citizens, who have the obligation and right to revolt if government no longer performs its functions that a majority of citizens consented to.  Hobbesian citizens cannot declare their government to be illegitimate because that would break the covenant, Locke on the other hand defends the right of citizens to rebel and declare their government illegitimate.  While both Hobbes and Locke employ a consent-based form of legitimacy, the consent of Locke’s citizens is subject to change whereas Hobbes is final.

Taking ideas from both Locke and Hobbes provides the best answer as to why governments exist.  They both agree that government has a duty to protect the rights of citizens, and be a judge of disputes between citizens.  However because of their different interpretations of human nature, they would probably disagree over the fact that government exists to keep our passions in check.  While I don’t think that humans are naturally inclined to as much violence as Hobbes asserts, I don’t think that humans are as rational as Locke assumes.  To a certain degree government, with laws and capital punishment, exists to protect us from ourselves.

Despite the fact that Hobbes brings up valid justifications as to why government exists Locke provides a more convincing and appealing argument.  Hobbes authoritarian government seems like tyranny at times, where its purpose and why it exists, is the submission of individuals. There’s no need to give up all our rights in order to establish government.  Doing so just inhibits freedom and liberty that everyone is entitled too.  There’s no fear of losing legitimacy or power in Hobbes government.  If it’s ineffective or ignores its responsibility there’s nothing Hobbesian citizens can do about it.  Because Locke’s citizens are able to hold government to a particular standard, and don’t have to wholly submit to a higher power, they are most likely to truly consent to a limited form of government.

So far I think I’m having some trouble with this paper.  Where I’m having the most trouble is with the counter-argument.  While I think I’m doing a good job in comparing the ideas of Locke and Hobbes, I’m unsure as to what the counter-argument is supposed to counter.  Is it why governments exist or which author we find more convincing?  I think I’m going to have to cut down my draft a little bit.  I’m providing a good amount of analysis of the text that might seem like summary, and I feel like I could use some more on my almost non-existent counter-argument, and my own personal answer as to why governments exist.  Please don’t be afraid to criticize every aspect of my paper.  I feel like I need a good amount to get it focused.