10.1 The Political Philosophy of Hobbes and Locke
Our introduction to Enlightened thinking will be on government. In a way, Machiavelli was a precursor of political science. As far as he was concerned, there were two undeniable principles at work in the operation of government: the good of the state and the means to the end. But Machiavelli was about what government is and what it does. The Enlightenment’s focus was on what government ought to be and should do. What are the natural laws that explain or underlie the origin and purpose of government? This question (although never publicly asked) finds answer in the works of two 17th century English philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
In 1651 Thomas Hobbes published a book titled Leviathan. In it, he explains that government originated through a contract to end a state of nature; that it should hold absolute power; and that its purpose was to provide for social peace. Almost 40 years later, in 1690, John Locke published his Two Treatises on Government. He, too, saw government originating through a contract likewise to end a state of nature; but that it should be limited in its power; and that its purpose was to protect one’s natural rights. Absolutism or constitutionalism? Where does the truth lie? Hobbes and Locke may have come to different conclusions about the purpose and power of government, but they both arrived at their conclusions through the same means: rational inquiry. What follows is a brief biographical overview of each and a description of their thinking on the origin and purpose of government.
Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679)
Born as the Spanish Armada was threatening England, Thomas Hobbes was the son of an Anglican clergyman. His father abandoned the family when Thomas was a child and he was raised by an elder brother. Fortunately, his brother prospered and was able to provide a good education for his siblings. Bright and precocious, Thomas entered Oxford University from which he graduated at age 20. Following Oxford, Hobbes earned a living as a tutor to the family of the Earl of Devonshire who provided him the opportunity to travel and to indulge his interests in philosophy, science, and mathematics. He briefly served as a secretary to Francis Bacon and, on a trip to the Continent in 1636, met Galileo. The growing conflict between Charles I and Parliament caused him to direct his attention to politics. He was disturbed by the seeming breakdown of order and wrote an essay defending absolute monarchy as essential to the preservation of social stability and national unity. Such sentiments were not popular with the Parliamentary radicals. In 1640 he relocated to Paris where he would wait out the crisis of the impending English Civil War. Soon he was joined by a small community of English royalist exiles that included the heir to the throne, Prince Charles. Hobbes served as the future king’s mathematics tutor. The outbreak of the Fronde in Paris in 1648 likewise convinced Hobbes that absolute monarchy was essential to order. It was on this background that Hobbes engaged in a flurry of philosophical writing among which would be his treatise on the origin and purpose of government, Leviathan.[1] The book was first published in 1651 in London, and Hobbes returned to England in the same year. He took refuge with his former employer the Earl of Devonshire. Cromwell was now in power and Devonshire had long since made accommodation with the revolutionary Parliament. Hobbes submitted his own submission to the Commonwealth which was accepted. Supported by a pension from Devonshire, Hobbes settled into a small house in London. Leviathan aroused a great deal of criticism and he busily wrote tracts defending the book and his ideas. Following the Restoration, King Charles II rewarded his former tutor with an additional pension and enjoyed debating with him on politics and philosophy. He continued to write. His works included a history of the Civil War, a translation of Leviathan into Latin, and the rewriting of the Iliad and the Odyssey in English rhymes. He never married. In his old age he again moved to the Devonshire estate. He died at age 92 in 1679.
In formulating his theory on the origin and purpose of government, Hobbes began with the premise that before organized societies came into existence, humanity lived in what he called a “state of nature.” The state of nature would have been characterized by violent anarchy as there were no enforced controls to restrain fundamental human actions. In the state of nature each individual was totally free to fend for him or herself. In Leviathan he described it as follows:
In such a 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 worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. (Knapton 494)
Why would he make such an observation? Two centuries of European overseas expansion had introduced Europeans to primitive societies in Africa and the Americas. From the European point of view the simple tribal life of primitive cultures such as the Indians of North America seemed barbaric and chaotic. The then logical conclusion was that these peoples were living much as once did other humans before civilization, in other words, they were seen as being prehistoric. The concept of prehistory was new and vague in the 17th century. Whereas the societies of some primitive cultures were very well documented by explorers, missionaries, and some colonial scholars, they were still viewed as savages incapable of achieving the accomplishments of civilized society. All of humanity, Hobbes reasoned, must have once lived as savages, close to and dependent on nature wherein life would indeed be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
So what happened to change things? Hobbes reasoned that at some point, somewhere, at some time, some human beings must have rationally come to understand that life in the state of nature was not tolerable. To remedy the situation and end the chaos, they entered into an agreement with each other to create a governing authority to which they would surrender their individual freedom in return for protection and order. Hobbes used the term “contract” to identify this agreement. Very simply, they entered into a social contract to end the state of nature. This had to have happened, he believed, because how else could one explain the existence of civilization?
Hobbes rejected the traditional view held by many civilized cultures that government was divine in its origins: that it was created by God to bring humanity the blessings of peace, stability, and order. Contemporary theologians, both Catholic and Protestant, stood firm in their belief that the Bible proved that government was a divine institution created for a divine purpose. Hobbes took a more scientific approach. Government was a human institution created by rational human beings for a human purpose. Humans saw and understood the need for authority and, through the social contract, acted to create it. What was the purpose of government? To establish peace, order, and stability. In terms of the purpose of government, Hobbes is in conformity with the spiritual explanation.
If government were to provide peace, order, and stability, what kind of power must it exercise? Hobbes answered this question very simply. It must have sovereign power. By sovereign power he meant absolute power. Only under an absolute government could people live in peace with each other and develop their talents and fulfill their ambitions. It did not matter if the government were one person or a group of persons. Whatever it was, it had to have absolute power. Hobbes used the term “commonwealth” to identify the concept of the state under sovereign power. That term fit, he reasoned, because the sovereign power of the government existed to provide for the common well-being of all.
Hobbes wrote Leviathan in 1651 in the early years of Cromwell’s rule. Consider what had been happening. The rule of Charles I had been challenged by Parliament’s claiming rights under ancient law. The conflict led to civil war and England fell into chaos. Parliament won the war, proclaimed England to be a republic, and executed the king. England under Parliamentary rule with all its contending factions still lacked stability. In order to provide some sort of workable peace, Cromwell had to rule as a military dictator. And, looking across the English Channel to France, young King Louis XIV’s chief minister Mazarin had just suppressed the Fronde reestablishing royal absolutism. Did this not prove that sovereign power was the only kind of power that worked? From Hobbes’ point of view, it did.
If Thomas Hobbes were asked, what is the best form of government, he no doubt would reply absolute monarchy. Absolute by virtue of natural law, a logical truth arrived at through reason. In short, Hobbes’ Leviathan provided a philosophical – not spiritual – justification of absolutism.
Hobbes died in 1679, a year significant for two reasons. In that same year the French Bishop Jacques Bossuet published his Politics as Drawn for the Very Words of Holy Scripture in which he uses the Bible to “prove” that royal absolutism was divine in both its origin and purpose. Bossuet’s book not only gave divine right legitimacy to the most powerful absolutism in Europe at the time, the monarchy of Louis XIV, but also to absolutism universally. In contrast, however, in England in 1679 Parliament passed the Habeas Corpus Act, a law limiting the power of government in the making of an arrest. No one, the Act implied, could be arrested for doing anything that was not a crime as stated by law. Therefore, in the English political mind, rights under law were seen as having supremacy over the power of government to conduct affairs as it saw fit. The relationship of government to rights under law would find its philosophical voice in John Locke.
John Locke (1632 – 1704)
Born during the period of Charles I’s Personal Rule, John Locke’s youth took place on the background of the intensifying political conflict between the crown and Parliament. His father was a Puritan attorney who espoused the parliamentary cause and imbued his son with the principles of constitutional government. The Civil War delayed Locke’s entry to Oxford, and he was not able to begin his university studies until age 20. At Oxford he studied philosophy and on completing his master’s degree stayed on at the university as a professor. A brief but failed romance, he wrote, “robbed me of my use of reason” (Durant 576), and he never married. He later took a degree in medicine, but never actively entered public practice. His medical studies, however, did introduce him to the scientific method which would have a profound effect on shaping his political thinking. In 1667 he became the personal physician to the Earl of Shaftesbury who was an influential member of Charles II’s cabinet. Shaftesbury would bring Locke into the world of English politics.[2] Shaftesbury appointed Locke as secretary of the Council of Trade and Plantations that oversaw England’s colonial development in America. In this capacity he drafted the “Fundamental Institutions,” the colonial charter (constitution) for the Carolina colonies. When Shaftesbury was dismissed, Locke traveled to Paris to pursue his philosophical studies. Returning to England in 1679, he retired to Oxford to resume his life as a scholar.
Locke's friendship with Shaftesbury, however, remained close, and Locke became suspect when Shaftesbury was arrested on the charge of treason. In 1683 Locke, fearing for his own safety, fled England to the Netherlands where he would remain throughout the reign of James II. While in exile he would write his famous work, Essay on Human Understanding. In 1687 he allied himself with those opposed to James II and actively supported the Whig conspiracy to replace James with William and Mary. On the background of the overthrow of James in the Glorious Revolution, he compiled the ideas that would make up his Two Treatises on Government which he would publish in 1690. In 1689 he returned to England on the same ship that brought the new Queen Mary home. Back in England, Locke’s later years found him serving in several government offices but his primary attention was on his writing. He died at age 72 in 1704.
Locke’s scholarly approach to understanding the origins and purpose of government was in many ways similar to Hobbes’. As did Hobbes, Locke saw humanity as once having lived in a prehistoric and primitive state of nature and that government had its origins through a social contract and had a philosophical purpose that justified its existence. Beyond these general similarities, however, were significant differences. As we have seen, Hobbes gave philosophical purpose to absolutism. Locke would champion constitutional government. He did so in his book Two Treatises on Government published in 1690.
Locke did not see human existence in the state of nature as having been as violent and chaotic as was Hobbes’ pessimistic view. Human beings in the state of nature were generally good-willed and compatible. And, while nothing was certain in the state of nature, people were conscious of their self-preservation while still being unlimited in their freedoms. What mattered to humans then, Locke reasoned, were what matter to humans in the present: their lives, their liberty, and their property. These were humanity’s “natural rights” – the right to life, liberty, and property. Whereas all in the state of nature might be conscious of and desirous of preserving their life, liberty, and property, there was still no guarantee that all might respect these rights in others. Because there were no restraints, injury, killing, enslavement, or theft did, could, and would happen. In short, in the state of nature, one’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property were threatened. As human beings were rational creatures capable of thinking logically, this threat to one’s natural rights was unacceptable. Some sort of governing authority was necessary.
Locke saw the social contract as having two stages. First, human beings contracted together to form civil society; secondly, they contracted to form government. Just as was Hobbes’, Locke’s approach to the origin of government was scientific. Government was a human institution created by rational human beings for a human purpose. Humans saw and understood the need for authority and, through the social contract, acted to create it. The contract was, therefore, the fundamental law or laws upon which government would operate. Very simply, it was a constitution, the supreme law. What was the purpose of government? Here, Locke again differs from Hobbes significantly. The sole, express contractual (constitutional) purpose of government was to protect one’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Such a government would be in harmony with natural law.
What did Locke mean by property? Locke was, after all, the philosophic voice of the Whig aristocratic and landed gentry- all wealthy property owners. Certainly he very much meant what we commonly call property – land, personal possessions, etc., but he also meant something far more intangible and, perhaps, more important. Property included who one was in terms of one’s talents, abilities, aspirations, interests, livelihood – in effect, how one directed and fulfilled one’s life. (What did Jefferson call this?)
What should happen if government were to fail in its purpose and threaten the natural rights of its citizens? In other words, what if government breaks the contract (violates the constitution)? The standard answer to this question is that the people then have the right to rebel and even to revolution. Locke does not see it so simply. If government does violate the law, the representatives of the political nation (such as Parliament) are first obligated to inform the government of its violation and urge that it correct the violation and conform to the law. (For example, this is what the Parliament did with King Charles I through the 1628 Petition of Right.) If the government refuses to obey the law or continues to ignore the law, then the “people” (political nation) may use force to compel the government to obey the law. If the government still refuses to obey the law, then the “people” may overthrow it and replace it by making a new contract creating a new government that will guarantee their natural rights.[3]
Locke was writing his Second Treatise on the background of the Glorious Revolution (1688 - 1689) wherein Parliament deposed King James II and made William and Mary the new monarchs of England. Royal power, however, would be subject to the traditions of the English Constitution to which would be added the 1689 Bill of Rights. A review of the reading on the Glorious Revolution should readily make evident that the English political nation did indeed do what Locke said should be done when government becomes abusive of its power. Basically, through his writing, Locke took a local palace coup and gave it universal philosophical application.
Whereas Hobbes would see absolute monarchy as the best form of government, Locke did not. Absolute power is too much power and leads to arbitrary abuse. Locke wrote, “that government is best which governs least” (Langer et al., 174). As government’s purpose was the protection of natural rights, the best government would be a constitutional government wherein the legislative power was held by property owning citizens. In this case he did mean property as wealth. Locke was a firm believer in government’s protection of rights under law, but he did not believe in democracy. To be understood and exercised properly, government must be the responsibility of educated people. Only the wealthy could afford education and have the intellectual training essential to effective government. A political nation founded on a wealth-based limited franchise would assure that such persons would be making law. [4]
John Locke’s political legacy is profound and timeless. In the thinking of the Enlightenment, natural law was indeed the undeniable truth upon which the universe functioned. The rational discovery and understanding of natural law were the result of humanity’s ability to think logically. Locke’s philosophy that contract-based government exists to protect and guarantee one’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property was, therefore, seen as a universal and self-evident truth. It is the philosophic basis upon which the colonial Americans, less than a century following Locke’s death, justified their revolution against Great Britain and proclaimed their independence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaftesbury Anthony Ashley Cooper, the first Earl of Shaftesbury, was a leader of those MPs who later would be called “Whigs.” Initially close to the King, Shaftesbury was a great champion of Parliament’s rights under law. In time, however, he became suspicious of King Charles’ flirting with absolutism and Catholicism and more vocal in his criticism of Charles’ policies. Shaftesbury, as were all Whigs, was opposed to a Catholic ever becoming king. When Charles’ brother and heir, James, proclaimed himself a Catholic, Shaftesbury tried to convince the King to divorce Queen Catherine and marry a Protestant princess so as to have a legitimate Protestant heir. Charles refused. Shaftesbury then allied himself with the Duke of Monmouth, Charles’ illegitimate son by a Protestant mistress, and joined in a conspiracy to overthrow the King. (This conspiracy was known as the Rye House Plot.) To Charles, Shaftesbury’s actions were, rightfully, treasonous as James, not Monmouth, was the legal heir to the throne. Shaftesbury was ordered arrested as were all others associated him, Locke included. Shaftesbury escaped from captivity and fled to the Netherlands where he died in 1683.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The images in this section are from Wikipedia sources for Hobbes and Locke.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources for Hobbes and Locke
Durant, Will and Ariel. The Age Louis XIV. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963.
Knapton, Ernest. Europe 1450 – 1815. New York: Scribners, 1958.
Langer, William et al. Western Civilization. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.
Palmer, Robert R. et al. A History of the Modern World. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2002.
Perry, Marvin. An Intellectual History of Modern Europe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1993.
Tucker, Albert. A History of English Civilization. New York: Harper, 1972.
Willcox, William. The Age of Aristocracy. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1971.
[1] What is meant by Leviathan? Leviathan is a reference to a Biblical sea monster with overwhelming power. Such must be the power of government if it is to be sovereign and provide the benefit of a peaceful society. (Today the term leviathan is often used to identify large sea creatures such as whales or very large ships.)
[2] Shaftesbury was a founder of the Whig faction. A brief description of Shaftesbury’s role in English politics is at the end of this reading.
[3] Where did Locke get the idea for this process of correction or change? From the Magna Carta, the fundamental contract upon which English constitutionalism is based. Article 61 calls for the crown to be advised by a select group of barons should it be in violation of any provisions of the Magna Carta. If the abuse were not corrected within 40 days, the political nation then would have the right to use force to compel the crown to obey the law.
[4] Understand that in the 17th century democracy as a political concept was identified with instability and chaos. In English minds democracy was associated with the Levellers and other seemingly eccentric radical political expressions that surfaced during the Commonwealth. One does not turn government over to illiterate masses, as there could never be consensus of opinion and factional chaos and violence would follow. Democracy, in a sense, represented a return to the state of nature.