government.
John Locke imagined the state of nature in a different way to Hobbes. Locke believed that the state of nature would not be a state of war but a state of perfect freedom, with all bound by the laws of nature. Unlike Hobbes, he believed that the principle of equality was nothing to do with physical or mental strength but that it was a moral claim about rights; that no person has a natural right to rule over any other person. This belief stems from the theological aspect of Locke’s philosophy (which is lacking from Hobbes’ view of the state of nature) as he believed that man was created by God to be his servants on earth. Consequently he felt that the natural inclination of man was to ‘preserve the rest of mankind’ 8 and that ‘no one ought to harm another in his life health, liberty or possessions’ 9 His belief in the superiority of God lead him to believe that everyone was ‘bound to preserve himself ’ 10 and ‘to preserve the rest of mankind’. 11 Locke felt that everyone had equal power to enforce the laws of nature. He concluded it was a natural right, held by each person, to punish those who disobey the laws of nature. Therefore Locke believed it was possible to live a generally acceptable life without a government. A fundamental difference in the state of nature, and therefore the philosophy of government, between Hobbes and Locke lies in their differing views on the availability of resources. Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that during the state of nature there was an abundance of goods for all. Competition for resources would not exist and there would be not reason to start war. However, Locke did not believe that this idyllic state of nature with an abundance of goods would persist. Instead he believed that resources would inevitably become scarce, not through population growth but through greed and the ‘invention’ of money. Money allows people to own more goods and currency than they need so that there becomes an incentive to collect more than immediately needed for future use. This leads to profit making, stealing and invasion, whereas in the idyllic state of nature nobody would have taken more than was necessary as it would have gone to waste. So as time progresses, goods become scarce and this leads to conflict. Unfortunately this process becomes repeated and intensified until Locke’s state of nature becomes unbearable. It becomes clear that government is required to maintain order and this is why Locke believes in a civic government. Locke argued that natural rights such as life, liberty and most importantly property existed in the state of nature and that nobody had a right to take them away; even if people wanted to voluntarily give up their rights, they could not. However, increasingly limited resources mean that a government is required to protect these natural rights which might otherwise be compromised. This is the key function of Locke’s government. Because he felt that all people were created equally, he insisted the sovereignty must lie with the people in the form of an assembly of elected representatives. Thus he advocates a limited government where the people have a right to a revolution if they believe that their rights have been compromised. Furthermore, he believed in a separation of powers in order to prevent one individual becoming too powerful within this government. As a result we can see how Locke’s view on the state of nature has shaped his philosophy of government, When Rousseau defined the state of nature he begun with a different premise; humans were not just motivated by self-preservation but also by pity and compassion. He believed that humans had ‘an innate repugnance at seeing fellow-creatures suffer’ 12 and he believed that this feeling was enough to stop people attacking others. He believed that the savage man had few desires; only food, sexual satisfaction and sleep. His only fears were hunger and pain. Each savage was portrayed by Rousseau solitary and almost as if he were some kind of wild animal. He described as this as the happiest and most stable of epochs ‘the real youth of the world’. 13
8 John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, chapter 2. Hackett 9 Ibid, chapter 2 10 Ibid, chapter 2 11 Ibid, chapter 2 12 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Dover Publications, 2004. 13 Ibid, 91
96
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker