Hobbes versus Locke: State of Nature and Legitimacy
By David Feinman
In the study of political theory and the analysis of the role of the sovereign in western society, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two of the most influential figures. Their philosophies on the way in which man lived before forming societies have been the backbone of the discussion of the state of nature and the legitimacy of the sovereign for many centuries. Hobbes, seeing the natural world as a nasty, brutish place of perpetual war, sees the legitimacy of a sovereign as being unquestioned and that of a paternal figure that instills order in a world without law or reason. Locke, in opposition, views the state of nature as a peaceful place where man can enjoy equality and liberty, and he believes that a sovereign’s legitimacy comes from the consent of the people whom he serves and protects, and who can remove him from power when he ceases to do so. This essay analyzes the differing opinions on the idea of a state of nature in Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government, and how those views influenced their ideas on the legitimacy of the sovereign. In terms of the state of nature, Hobbes and Locke see two very different worlds. In Leviathan, Hobbes sees the state of nature as a perpetual state of war “where every man is Enemy to every man.”1 Without “a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in the condition which is called Warre,” and this state of war does not only consist of actual fighting, “but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance of the contrary.”2 The result of such a state of nature is a world where there is “no place for Industry…no Navigation…no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and the danger of violent death.”3 Inhabitants of Hobbes’ state of nature have a “nasty, brutish, and short” life in which no
1 2
Hobbes, p. 70 Ibid. 3 Ibid.
progress, no prosperity, and no peace can be found.4 There are no rules, chaos reigns, and there are no definitions of what is right or wrong, good or evil, or morally virtuous. Locke, however, sees a very different state of nature. In The Second Treatise of Government, he describes this world as “a state of perfect freedom [in which people can] order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.”5 This is a world of “equality…without subordination or subjection…[and] liberty,” but this state of nature has a law of nature which governs it, as well as reason, which teaches man that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.”6 Locke’s state of nature is one of self-determination, but with regulation to ensure no one’s freedom is compromised. These opposing views of the state of nature bring about differing opinions relating to the legitimacy of a sovereign. Following his view of a nasty, brutish world of perpetual warfare, Hobbes sees the role of a sovereign as protector of the people, author of the law, and supreme authority. The sovereign’s entitlement to this power comes from the divine right granted by God, as the monarch is an heir to the throne through the bloodline of Adam. The laws and authority comes from the language created by the sovereign, who defines the culture in which the people live and what is considered good or evil and right or wrong. Individuals enter society to escape the chaotic state of nature, and the sovereign provides stability and security from that previous state. While individuals have the right to break away from society and go back to the state of nature under certain circumstances, nobody has the right to challenge the power or supreme right of judgment of the sovereign, regardless of his infringement on the rights of the people. If a subject is punished wrongly, and the sovereign deems that punishment to be the proper action, there is no challenge to his decision, as he is the supreme ruler and the determinant of the laws. Only the sovereign himself can challenge his own laws, which would not logically happen, and he
4 5
Ibid. Locke, p. 2 6 Ibid., p. 3
can never be accused of a treasonous act against his dominion. Ultimately, to Hobbes, the sovereign is the be-all and end-all of all aspects of society, culture and law. Locke, however, sees the sovereign as below the law, and places sovereign power in the hands of the citizenry. To him, a legitimate sovereign is held responsible to and obeys the law. In this world, a sovereign can be accused of treason for violating his oath to the people whom he serves, and the people have the right to overthrow the sovereign if he is infringing on their rights, misuses money garnished through taxes, or does anything to violate their property, whether physical or intellectual. The people also have the right to remove him from power when they deem him incapable of defending their interests or securing their safety, and have the right to choose a successor. For Locke, the legitimacy of the sovereign rests with the people whom he governs, not in his power as an individual or in the institutions of the government that he creates. Both of these philosophers’ writings have been used to legitimize the use of power and the formation of governments throughout history. Hobbes’ Leviathan has provided a blueprint for dictators to validate the implementation of authoritarian governments and the maintenance of monarchies throughout European history, while Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government was a guide to developing democracies, such as the United States and France. In both cases, their views on the legitimacy of the sovereign come from starkly different views on the state of nature.