Reconciliation between Hobbes and Locke in their philosophy of politics

‒ 923 ‒ CAPÍTULO 54 RECONCILIATION BETWEEN HOBBES AND LOCKE IN THEIR PHILOSOPHY OF POLITICS DANIEL HEREDIA Universidad de Sevilla 1. INTRODUCTION If we take the philosophy of the 17th century, it is inevitable to bring in names like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. The theories of this two philosophers in the field of Political Philosophy are indebted to the tradition that is marked by the work of Machiavelli, although, of course, with their pertinent differences. In this work we will see how Hobbes and Locke understand the state of nature of the human being and how the state and civil government are created, being able to see that the perspectives of both are not too far apart. The work is divided into several sections. Section 1 will be the introduction. Section 2 contains the methodology. Section 3 concerns the goal, that is, the state of nature of the human being. Section 4 is dedicated to the debate, the creation of the state and civil government. Section 5 corresponds to more aspects of the debate, in this case about the concentration or division of power. And section 6 contains the conclusions. 2. METHODOLOGY This study employs a comparative approach to analyze the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two influential figures in the history of political thought. The methodology involves a systematic examination of their respective works, primarily focusing on Hobbes' "Leviathan" and Locke's "Second Treatise of Government." ‒ 924 ‒ A comprehensive review of secondary sources is conducted to gather insights into the historical context, intellectual backgrounds, and key arguments of both philosophers. This review serves as a foundation for understanding the nuances of their thought and identifying areas of convergence and divergence. Close textual analysis is employed to dissect Hobbes' and Locke's primary texts, with a particular emphasis on their theories of the state of nature, social contract, natural rights, and the role of government. This analytical approach enables a detailed examination of the philosophical frameworks presented by each thinker. A comparative framework is developed to systematically compare and contrast the political theories of Hobbes and Locke. This framework encompasses thematic categorization, identifying common themes and divergent viewpoints across their works. Critical evaluation is applied throughout the study to assess the strengths and weaknesses of Hobbes' and Locke's arguments. This evaluation involves scrutiny of logical coherence, empirical evidence, and philosophical implications, aiming to provide a balanced assessment of their contributions to political theory. Finally, the findings from the comparative analysis are synthesized to elucidate overarching patterns, philosophical tensions, and implications for contemporary political discourse. This synthesis aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the philosophical foundations of modern political thought. Through this methodology, the study aims to provide a nuanced comparative view of Hobbes' and Locke's political philosophies, shedding light on their enduring relevance and implications for contemporary political theory and practice. 3. GOAL: STATE OF NATURE Defining the human being a political animal in the Aristotelian way makes perfect sense for several reasons. One of them is the social status that belongs to us. When living in society, it is normal for conflicts to ‒ 925 ‒ arise, and order must be established so that life as a whole is as tolerable as possible. On the other hand, the consciousness of an individual exists in us, since we can identify ourselves as something (or rather someone) outside that social group. Between these two positions are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Hobbes understands that it is true that we live [and coexist] in society, but that this is not because human beings are social by nature. According to Hobbes, the idea of the human being as a political animal does not really reflect the human condition. His position is based on the belief that the reason for living in society is none other than to avoid destroying one's own species. On the other hand, Locke does defend the social and political condition of the human being, and that if this has occurred it has not been as a desperate measure with which one can escape from human nature itself. While Hobbes chooses to support an individual and “antisocial” nature of the human being, in which we have to create politics to avoid our own destruction; Locke does not understand it in the same way, since he defends a nature of the human being in which we know ourselves within a group in which we live and let live. One of the ideas that we can stop at to better observe both positions is that of the state of nature. The state of nature in Hobbes is understood as that historical (or prehistoric) moment in which there is no society as we know it, but rather the world is composed of individuals without a conception of the whole, with an infinite hunger for desires (Hobbes, 1962: 20). In this state everything is allowed to satisfy these desires. This necessarily leads to a dead end: conflict between those who want the same thing. How is this situation resolved? In a world without limits and in which we find ourselves at the crossroads where the same desires between individuals are a matter of dispute, their lives are in serious danger. One lives, thus, among wolves. But it has not yet been clear what it is that allows the realization of desires. Hobbes is very clear: power. Power is evident in the scenario in which two (or more) individuals find themselves in the middle of a conflict of ‒ 926 ‒ interests when it comes to satisfying such desires, in the sense that - although in that state of nature we all have the right to satisfy them - not everyone has the same capacity to be able to face certain stronger individuals (Hobbes, 1962: 94). That is, strength is shown as one of the expressions of power, but it will not be the only one. Persuasion carried out through mental procedures also plays a fundamental role when it comes to having power. Power is the only thing that human beings need to satisfy their desires in the state of nature. And we have to ask ourselves, what is wrong with that? Is not this way of acting another (more or less subtle) form of natural selection? The answer cannot be reduced to a yes or a no. Hobbes would not understand the concept of natural selection as we do, so he would dare say that this argument could not convince him enough. On the other hand, if he knew this concept, he could counterargue that in natural selection animals do not adapt and eliminate each other for the mere motivation of obtaining power to satisfy desires as humans do. Therefore, because it is different, natural selection can still make sense if we decide to eliminate the state of nature, as Hobbes intends. What concerns Hobbes is not the events of nature itself, but how humans can distort it and turn it into a terrifying state. Fear begins to spread and in this scenario what solves the problem is the creation of something that is above the human being: the State. Let's move on to the state of nature according to John Locke. Locke also recognizes the freedom to act as one wishes individually, but with the difference that for Locke the human being is not subject to passions and desires, but maintains that the human being is a rational being (a rational animal that Aristotle would say). It is not that he denies that human beings can be passionate, but that he does not grant the total predominance of human nature to the passions, as it may seem in Hobbes. With Locke we see a more rational human being, who is not invaded by the power of passions. To a certain extent, both recognize that, if passions govern human life, it can be seriously harmed. In the Lockean state of nature, the human being is free within frameworks established through laws that, because they are “rationally ‒ 927 ‒ correct,” are necessarily complied with, and these are natural laws. There is freedom to act individually, but there is also a kind of “limitation” that is these natural laws. Natural laws serve to make all humans equal. While in Hobbes' state of nature the human being could act in any way to satisfy their desires, in Locke's this has no place. Locke defends that the human being in its nature understands other fellow humans as equals, and, therefore, understands that they cannot harm them simply because they want to do so in order to satisfy their desires. Conceiving oneself and others as such necessarily leads human beings to act taking into account the fundamental rights granted to them through natural laws. This fact, therefore, does not allow for a state of nature in which the human being must fear for their lives, just as they did in the Hobbesian state of nature (Locke, 2006: 12). The freedom available to the human being in the Lockean state of nature is concentrated in the freedom that one has over oneself and one's possessions and not over others. Locke strips the human being of that license, since he conceives that it belongs to no one except the Divine Creator. It is true that Locke recognizes the human being's freedom to act, but understood as a flow with the environment and not as a way of acting by imposing its will through the possible power that the human could obtain by acting freely. Locke shows less fear of the way humans behave in their natural state. But given this perfectly matched scenario, why did human beings end up introducing a higher order to supervise everything? In Hobbes we saw that the motive was to avoid our selfdestruction, but what about Locke? In the Lockean state of nature the right to attack the freedom of another, although as long as this other has transgressed the natural law. The one who attacks the peace that natural laws provide us can be subjected to whatever punishment the person who wants to condemn him (her) considers, because he (she) is given the right to judge whoever wants [who obviously complies with natural laws] to resolve the conflict that he has created. who has violated natural law. But the way to judge it must always obey reason. Passions should not be allowed to enter into this situation, but should be punished “according to the dictates of serene reason and conscience, assigning penalties that are proportional to the ‒ 928 ‒ transgression and that serve to enable the criminal to repair the damage he has done and abstain from doing so.” of repeating his offense” (Locke, 2006: 14). In Locke we are witnessing the passage from an individual state of nature to society almost without realizing it. There are aspects of that benevolent human being that are twisted towards the more human side, or, we could say, the more imperfect side. Locke himself realizes that we can be biased in our judgment. It is not the same to punish an offender who is not known as another who is known. Conflict enters the Lockean scenario of perfect coexistence between individuals. The conflict converges towards an ill-advised location, which is the state of war (Locke, 2006: 22). It should be said before continuing that the state of nature is not distinguished from the state of war. The state of war occurs when conflict occurs in the state of nature. Once this is clarified, we can see that Locke integrates into reason something that seemed to have nothing to do with its nature, evil. Hobbes located evil in the passions, and something of the same caliber could be deduced in Locke. What gave the security to maintain an almost loving relationship with each other can also be the reason why one enters a state of war. The Hobbesian and Lockean scenarios of the state of nature begin to meet. The state of war is, for Locke, something to avoid, and, therefore, he also sees necessary the creation of that something that is above the human being that helps him preserve order: the state of society. If we look closely at his system we can see that both Hobbes and Locke, at the end of the day, grant human beings the same goal to aspire to: peace. And peace seems to be a state that cannot occur unless it is consensual. Being social seems to be necessary in both for peace to exist and persist. Acting together towards the common good is what seems to lead us to peace. And this “agreement for the common good” must follow the tutelage of reason. Which leads us to the fact that in reality both thinkers do not say very different things. In the states of nature, both Hobbesian and Lockean, there is the “danger” of someone appearing who threatens peace (in Hobbes it occurs as a result of an excessive use of the passions; in Locke it occurs when one – or several – they violate the natural law and that necessarily leads towards the state of ‒ 929 ‒ war), and this itself causes both to aspire to the opposite, that is, to achieve that state of peace. The entry into the scene of the conflict, of that which inevitably leads us to war, makes the paths of both authors' thoughts direct towards a point of convergence. That point of convergence is the consensus for the creation of a State (Hobbes) or Civil Government (Locke) that ensures the security of each individual. 4. DEBATE: CREATION OF THE STATE AND THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT Until now it has been seen that the human being in Hobbesian thought showed that he had an evil nature from which he had to escape because, if not, he ran the risk of endangering his existence. For this very reason, the creation of the State was necessary. The way in which it is possible for human beings to see such a step as necessary requires a consensus between those same individuals who compete with each other. Suddenly, we can realize that these human beings, who were wolves to each other, stop to think about what would be best so that the situation inevitably goes towards catastrophe. Being consistent, we realize that the nature of the human being is not so “wolflike”. Society, the idea of belonging to something in common, turns out to be completely necessary to begin the path that leads human beings towards their salvation. So, as we saw above, while in Locke at first he participated in a defense of a benevolent and social nature of the human being, but that little by little it was “depurified”; in Hobbes we are seeing the opposite effect. That human being who is insatiable when it comes to satisfying their desires and who will do everything in their power to obtain power to continue satisfying their desires now need their fellow human beings to bring peace to this entire horizon. The creation of the State is agreed. But what structure should it have? What form of action should be carried out? What role do individuals play now, once the State is created? Obviously the functioning of the State must be different from what occurred in the state of nature, since what was sought with the creation of this was a different way of living. But it is also true that important features of the state of nature would be ‒ 930 ‒ preserved. And that is the value of power. The State must monopolize everything, in order to subdue that nature dominated by passions. And in the hands of how many should power fall? Hobbes is a defender of only one (Hobbes, 1962: 168), which would be the sovereign, which is the name that power acquires in the State (sovereignty). We see that in the process of concentrating power solely and exclusively in the sovereign, there must be a great common awareness that the creation of the State is the solution to human problems. Therefore, the State is made up of all those individuals who agree to its creation. It is one thing for the sovereign, once he obtains power, to be the sole holder of the privilege of doing and undoing. But it is no less true that this authority has been granted at the expense of guaranteeing the safety of everyone. This is possible because everyone responds to a common idea, that is, no one acts on their own. Everyone wants to live in peace. And not only that, they want to live in peace forever. Nevertheless, what stands as the solution to human problems also brings with it consequences that contain even more problems. To begin with, there is the problem of acting according to power, and the responsibility that this entails. According to Hobbes, by granting power to the sovereign one is, on the one hand, renouncing that power on the part of the individuals, thus remaining subordinate to the will of the sovereign; and on the other hand, the responsibility for what the sovereign does falls on those who have authorized him to do it. This second aspect is, to say the least, striking. The sovereign has full power to do and undo as he pleases, but the responsibility for such acts falls on those who allow such a circumstance. The representative of power has such a role because, according to Hobbes, he does not enter into that pact that everyone has reached individually, but rather he limits himself to fulfilling what he has been entrusted with. The pact is, as we have seen above, irrevocable. This condition applies to all parties, that is, individuals cannot seek to change the form of government that has been agreed upon, nor can the sovereign, since what legitimizes him to act with complete freedom is the will of all, and this was unique and common. Therefore, the sovereign acts according to the power that has been granted to him and not according to his own will. ‒ 931 ‒ In Hobbes it can be perceived that he takes into account that perfection does not exist and, therefore, what is intended to be created has (and will have) defects, as all this leads us almost inevitably to absolutist systems. But another thing that is quite clear is that Hobbes defends that, although these “defects” can be an evil, it is of a lesser caliber. Let's look at the creation of Locke's Civil Government. We have seen that, for Hobbes, human beings begin to know and develop their dark side once they begin to compete with others for power, which is what makes it possible to satisfy desires, once these become a reason for conflict. According to Locke, the full right to judge others can become what makes the good nature of human beings corrupt, because this can lead to being vengeful and partial, doing “good” to friends and evil to enemies. It all starts because an individual may be breaking natural law, so he (she) becomes under the control of whoever wants to judge him (her). If human beings were totally rational, these types of conflicts would not present any problem; but we have passions, and these can become so powerful that they can even alter the function of reason, which becomes used to do evil instead of good. Let us remember that Locke knows perfectly well that revenge is not something totally passionate, it requires reason to carry it out. The similarity with Hobbes lies in the fact that obtaining that power over another brings out the most perverse side of the human being. Therefore, the creation of a Civil Government is the solution. Like in the Hobbesian State, the creation of such authority must be a consequence of a consensus on the part of all individuals (Locke, 2006: 97), that is, the creation of the State is not a forced solution, but something that everyone wants to achieve, thus, the peace that is so longed for. This agreement must include each of the individuals who allow such a decision to be made. We must submit to the positive laws that are decided among all and fully. This must be conceived in such a way, that is, as a common act, with a single direction. The opposite cannot be expected. Not understanding the pact as something fully common, says Locke, is like not leaving the state of nature, in which each one acted ‒ 938 ‒ Lockean state of nature is not similar to the Hobbesian state of nature, but to the State. In the Hobbesian state of nature one was not responsible for anything for the actions of individuals, while in Locke's, one was subject to the natural laws imposed by God. Freedom for Locke does not have a very different meaning from that defended by Hobbes. For Locke, what should be most monitored is power in politics, hence he maintains its division. Similar or different, it is undeniable that both occupy a transcendental place in philosophy in general. And not only that, but also in the way political systems operate. Ways of understanding politics, as powerhoarding as enlightened despotism; as well as its opposites, such as political liberalism, find their source of inspiration in these thinkers, which shows how rich their systems are. 7. ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS This work has been funded by Next GenerationEU within the “Margarita Salas” postdoctoral program for young doctors. 8. REFERENCES Hobbes, T. (1962) Leviathan, Chicago, Oxford University Press. Locke, J. (2006) Segundo Tratado sobre el Gobierno Civil, trad. por Carlos Mellizo, Madrid, Tecnos.