This week you have the third essay due Sunday this week. It is another comparison and contrast, so here is a reminder of my suggestions for this type of paper:
Please note the above suggestions assumes your paper will be approximately 600-680 words, which is the normal length for a two-page paper. This format should also help you quickly formulate a quality paper that focuses on major elements/themes in broad works.
REVIEW VERY IMPORTANT
Hobbes
– The state of nature begins with scientific (physics, mechanistic) observation and theory of human behavior.
– Theory of human nature as self-interested rational, asocial, and amoral, generates a state of nature that is naturally a state of war.
– Men are naturally and equally free, but equal freedom leads to destruction.
Locke
– Although an empiricist, Locke’s state of nature is fundamentally analytical, ahistorical and without empirical evidence. It is a story. And, there is no real theory of human behavior prior to his theory of the contract.
– Locke’s understanding of human beings as moral-rational agents, who are social and interdependent, generates a state of nature that is naturally a state of peace – even if there are ‘inconveniences’. These inconveniences may but not necessarily lead to a state of war.
– The state of nature is also a state of “perfect freedom and equality” – this means all men are naturally free and equal, and equal freedom does not lead to destruction.
– As naturally social and cooperative, man naturally seeks: one main impetus for leaving the s of n and the first cause of the first political societies.
– Finally, in the state of nature, the world cannot be maximally developed to become maximally productive. God gave us the world for our benefit and convenience and would not have wanted it to remain in common uncultivated.
He believed that man was meant for civil society and that the latter must impose limitations on citizens if individual rights are to be protected. However, there are some stark contrasts between Hobbes and Locke.
Hobbes
– Reason is self-interest.
– Reason directs us to preserve mankind only.
– Hobbes does not really subscribe to a law of nature; he merges this understanding with natural rights.
Locke
– The law of nature is “reason.” Reason is moral knowledge. Reason is what makes us naturally oriented to goodness and peace.
– Reason directs us to preserve mankind and to protect property in person and thing.
– The Law of Nature (moral reason) commands we ought not “to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
Hobbes
– Human beings are born equally free.
– Absolute liberty abounds in the state of nature, leading to death and destruction.
Locke
– Human beings are born free and equal moral agents.
– There is no absolute liberty to do whatever one wants. Man has natural, built-in moral restraints.
– Equality: people have: (a) equal possession of reason, (b) equal right to things necessary to their existence and preservation, (c) equal possession of earth, (d) equal right to execute the law of nature, (e) equal exclusive property in their own persons.
Hobbes
– One stage
– Reasons for the contract: To escape the state of war and lay down rights to one another in agreement to a common authority in One Sovereign for self-preservation.
Locke
– Two stages: social and a political contract.
– Reason for the contract(s): To escape inconveniences (no law, no impartial judge, no executive power) and to protect property by establishing a common authority. It might seem this is an admission of human-beings as self-interested, like Locke. But, it is not. It is an admission that we need law for self-preservation and property protection in the event restraint must be imposed on those who veer from their natural moral inclinations and enact harm (war) or violation of freedoms, namely freedom of property.
– In civil societies, men give up their natural freedom to each other to gain protection of the laws. Civil society exists only where men give up the natural executive power they possess in the state of nature. There can be no social compact unless men are bound by it beyond what they are in the state of nature.
Hobbes
– We need a Sovereign.
– The sovereign is common in One: a monarch (sort of Plato)
– A monarch is necessary to keep us out of the state of nature.
– The Sovereign is outside of the contract between subjects.
– The Sovereign serves only to maintain security.
– The Sovereign/government has limited power – negative state (negative freedom).
– No popular consent to a continuous contract or political society.
Locke
– We need a Sovereign.
– The Sovereign is common in all and manifests in “law”. The Sovereign is “the law,” which is fair and equally applied to all equally. (sort of Aristotle)
– A monarch is a return to the state of nature.
– The Sovereign and citizens have a reciprocal relationship.
– The Sovereign serves to maintain security and protection of property.
– Government has limited power – negative state (negative freedom).
– The state arises from the consent of the people to be ruled by the majority – a majority constrained to respect the rights of all.
– Popular consent not only creates but produces the continued existence of a political society – popular sovereignty. Sovereignty, therefore, is with the people.