Hobbes vs Locke: Social Contract and Political Philosophy

Relationship Between Hobbes and Locke

Both authors are contractualists. The State is established through a covenant or contract between individuals who live naturally. Before the State, both authors recognize the existence of a state of nature.

Hobbes defends the absolute state, while Locke defends the liberal state. From this, we can realize the differences in three sections:

• The state of nature: For Hobbes, this is a state of insecurity. By nature, human beings are equal. Moreover, every human being has the tendency to satisfy their wants and needs. Therefore, the state of nature is a state of war of all against all, characterized by the fear of losing life or property. For Locke, human beings are also equal, free, and independent by nature. In Locke, we find a situation of war of all against all, but a state which can experience periods of war or peace.
• The foundation of the contract: For Hobbes, the foundation is none other than fear, while for Locke, it is the rights that all humans possess (justice).
• The result of the compact: For Hobbes, the contract makes every citizen give up all their rights. The absolute ruler is outside the contract (possessing the right to life and death over his subjects) and seeks one thing: the safety of life and property. Locke looks for another kind of security: the maintenance of the natural rights of every human being. Citizens have the right to rebel against the government if it fails to meet this task.

Current Relevance of the Second Treatise

The Separation of Powers

The basis of modern democracies is the separation of powers, as proposed by Locke. Although the three existing powers are not the same as those Locke postulated (now legislative, executive, and judicial), they were inspired by Montesquieu, with Locke being the true precursor.

To our author, we owe the conception of a State which is obliged to respect the rights of its citizens. It was Locke who said it was necessary to organize this by separating state powers as collateral and through its own limitations.

The Controversy Between Freedom and Security

Many Western countries have cut the freedoms of their citizens based on the need for security against terrorist attacks, such as surveillance cameras everywhere. How far can we restrict citizens' rights and personal freedom?

Locke also found the answer: the liberal approach. He argues that the State cannot take freedom from its citizens unless they have surrendered it voluntarily.