The New Science of Politics John Locke, The Social Contract & Natural Law

Where we left off… Thomas Hobbes Human Nature one of narrow self-interest State of nature (i.e. outside society, outside politics) characterized by total war of each against all State of nature so horrifying we must leave it for our own safety Leave the state of nature by entering into a social contract Terms of Hobbes’ social contract: exchange rights for security Sovereign is established to enforce the social contract Sovereign is unequal to others in the society: Sovereign subject Thomas Hobbes Even the cruelest despotism is preferable to the state of nature Hobbes’ social contract seen as the “last word” in English philosophy of law for the remainder of the 17th Century

John Locke (1632-1704) Son of Parliamentarians from Somerset in SW England (Somerset was primarily Royalist in the English Civil War) Interpretation of society central to the idea of limited government by consent Witness to most of the same events as Hobbes English Civil War, Cromwell and the Restoration Also saw the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 and the English Declaration of Rights Self-described “enemy to the scribbling of this age”—Hobbes perhaps? Readily received by anti-Royalists, especially Whigs and Scots, Hugenots in France, and the Dutch

Locke and Human Nature To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in… (Sounds like the beginnings of another State of Nature argument, doesn’t it?) …and that is a state of perfect Freedom to 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 on the will of any other man. A State also of Equality, wherein all the power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another: there being nothing more evident than that Creatures of the same species and rank promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection

Liberty is not License But though this be a state of Liberty, yet it is not a state of license, though Man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty…yet he has not liberty to destroy himself or so much as any creature in his possession but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it.

The State of Nature and the Law of Nature The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges everyone Reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions. There cannot be any…subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another. Laws have no power unless they are enforced. Who enforces law in the State of Nature?

Human possessions in the State of Nature Life Perfect Liberty to order actions, dispose of possessions and persons Perfect Equality of condition and necessity Absolute Power to enforce the Law of Nature against transgressors Individual Sovereignty—everyone in the state of nature is a sovereign unto themselves

What’s Wrong with Locke’s State of Nature? Reason dictates that no punishment for transgressing the Law of Nature should extend beyond retribution and restraint Human reason limited-- either by self preservation or distorted perception of transgressions against the Law of Nature Self-preservation requires that violations of liberty and equality be punished, stopped, and prevented Individual ability to defend against transgression is limited Result: Total defensive war of each against all. “Incommodities of nature” forces human beings to leave the State of Nature and enter Society, i.e. to establish a Social Contract

Wait a Minute…This sounds like Hobbes… Human beings equal in nature State of Nature insecurity and total war of each against all Social Contract established to leave the state of nature How is this any different?

Hobbes v. Locke Human nature State of nature Equality of condition Hope Necessity Absolute right of property Perfect Liberty Perfect Equality Imperfect reason Governed by law of nature Human nature Rights of Liberty and equality Executive power over law of nature—all are sovereigns Insecure defensive power—total defensive war Competition Diffidence Glory Total War of each v. all State of nature Exchange absolute right of property for security Sovereign established to enforce the Social Contract Subjects obliged to follow the Sovereign provided the he does not violate the Social Contract Terms of the Social Contract Consent to exchange executive power for security of life, liberty and property Sovereign established to enforce law of nature where individuals are unable to do so Individuals obliged to follow law of nature and all laws in the society pursuant to the Law of Nature

Hobbes v. Locke Give up no rights Give up absolute sovereignty Share executive power for security of rights Society formed: individuals consent to terms of the contract Give up rights for security Created out of societal need Enforces the Social Contract Enjoys liberty to enforce Social Contract as he (they) see(s) fit Created out of transferred individual sovereignty from nature Enforces Social Contract Enforces Law of Nature Limited by Law of Nature Properties of the Sovereign social inequality Sovereign over subjects subject to sovereign power subordinate to sovereign Retain equality and liberty Subjects equal to sovereign in rights of life, liberty and property obliged to society Individuals under the contract If they fail to enforce the Social Contract Must be replaced with an equivalent sovereign Nature of sovereigns can only be changed through a new society If they fail to enforce the Social Contract If they transgress the Law of Nature New Sovereigns and new sovereign forms require consent for legitimacy Replacing Sovereigns