Question

Hobbes looked to the past to observe a primitive “State of Nature” in which there is no such thing as morality, and that this self-interested human nature was "nasty, brutish, and short" – a kind of perpetual state of warfare.

Locke disagreed, and set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right – and sometimes the duty – to withdraw their support and even to rebel. Locke addressed Hobbes's claim that the state of nature was the state of war, though he attribute this claim to "some men" not to Hobbes. He refuted it by pointing to existing and real historical examples of people in a state of nature. For this purpose he regarded any people who are not subject to a common judge to resolve disputes, people who may legitimately take action themselves to punish wrong doers, as in a state of nature.

• Which philosophy do you espouse?
• How much authority should be granted to governments (e.g., the right to kill (death penalty/capital punishment/use of deadly force)? How much would you give up in return for safety?
• If you side with Hobbes, do you support at any point recourse if the government violates its own contract (if so, you probably have a bit of Locke in your thinking)?

Answer 1

(Answer) According to Kant, one should treat others in a way that one would like to be treated. In other words, if you would like to be treated with kindness, it would be only right to treat a fellow human being with the same kindness. Since we are all of the same species, when we mistreat others, we make ourselves open to the same treatment. This is simply because people of the same stratum or position are likely to get the same treatment that a person within their group has received.

When one person usurps the rights of another, this person should face punitive measures. For instance, if a murderer takes away the victim’s right to live, they should be sentenced for their crime as they have faltered and might do it again. However, the punishment should be limited to sentencing and not to the death penalty. This is because, just like the murdering the victim was wrong, it would be equally wrong to take the life of the criminal as it isn't a right endowed on a human being to usurp anther’s right to live.

In order to achieve security needs, one is likely to give up the higher needs of Maslow’s needs hierarchy without sacrificing the needs that are more important than security needs. This means that one might achieve security needs by giving up relationships, self-actualisation etc. However, one would not typically give up basic food, clothing and shelter in order to achieve security needs.

Hobbes was of the belief that human beings are primal creatures who might easily give in to their feral instincts. Hobbes believed that a person without rules would mean that they become anarchic. This is the state of nature that causes a human being to adhere to their natural instincts and ignore decorous social instincts. Therefore, the purpose of the government is to ensure the safety of the people.

Hobbes believed that an individual should only not be allowed to conduct actions that are harmful to another individual. Therefore, according to his social contract theory, it is the purpose of social and government contracts to ensure that the rights of an individual are not being usurped by another. Furthermore, without a social contract, Hobbes believed that the society would be anarchic.

If the government fails to provide the needs that Hobbes mentions, the citizens should have the right to change the working of the governing body to one that best satisfies the needs of the people. According to John Locke’s social contract theory, when society or the government would fail to secure the natural rights of an individual, the society would have the right to disobey the governing head. In other words, the people would maintain their power over the governing body by simply choosing to support only the head that satisfies their needs.