Download Makeda Easter Professor Pinkard Political and Social Thought


Makeda
Easter
Professor
Pinkard
Political
and
Social
Thought
Hobbes/Locke
Paper
How
Inherent
Natures
of
Humans
Affect
their
Right
to
Property
Philosophers
Thomas
Hobbes
and
John
Locke
have
very
conflicting
views
on
rights
to
property
in
the
state
of
nature.
In
this
essay,
I
will
juxtapose
the
views
of
rights
to
property
for
both
Hobbes
and
Locke.
I
will
then
make
a
case
for
why
I
believe
Hobbes’s
argument
is
sound
and
practical.
Then
I
will
make
a
case
for
why
Locke’s
views
are
not
sound,
and
not
thoroughly
proven.
In
the
Leviathan,
Hobbes
describes
the
overall
nature
of
humans.
Hobbes
makes
the
claim
that,
“the
similitude
of
passions,
which
are
the
same
in
all
men,
desire,
fear,
hope”
(Introduction
387).
Every
person
has
inherent
desires
that
drive
him
or
her
to
make
the
decisions
they
do.
Desires
can
include
food,
shelter,
and
wealth.
Also,
“that
which
men
desire,
they
are
also
said
to
love”
(Chapter
6
393).
These
desires
bring
about
feelings
of
pleasure‐
or
pain,
if
the
object
of
the
desire
is
not
obtained.
Hobbes
claims
that
humans
have,
“a
perpetual
and
restless
desire
for
power
after
power,
that
only
ceaseth
in
death”
(Chapter
11
399).
The
reason
for
this
is
that
a
person
cannot
live
a
satisfying
life
without
the
constant
attempts
to
gain
more
power.
The
desire
for
power
is
also
the
causes
of
greed.
Hobbes
argues,
“nature
hath
made
men
so
equal,
in
the
faculties
of
body,
and
mind;
as
that
though
there
be
found
one
man
sometimes
manifestly
stronger
in
body
or
of
quicker
mind
than
another;
yet
when
all
is
reckoned
together,
the
difference
between
man,
and
man
is
not
so
considerable”
(Leviathan
Chapter
13
402).
With
this
equality,
men
and
women
are
able
to
obtain
their
desires.
If
and
when
two
women
desire
the
same
object,
either
woman
has
nothing
to
fear
since
they
both
have
the
same
strength
of
body
and
mind.
Obviously,
if
two
people
desire
the
same
thing,
conflict
will
ensue.
That
is
why
war
is
inevitable
in
the
state
of
nature.
Hobbes
makes
the
claim
that
there
are
“
three
causes
of
quarrel”
(Ch
13
405).
The
first
cause
is
competition,
the
second
is
insecurity,
and
the
third
is
honor.
With
competition,
man
invades
to
be
rewarded.
The
object
of
the
second
cause
is
security.
And
the
object
of
quarrelling
for
honor,
is
receiving
recognition
from
others.
The
state
of
warfare
is
extremely
common
in
the
state
of
nature.
There
is
no
security,
people
must
live
in
a
constant
state
of
fear,
and
there
is
no
certainty
of
anything.
In
Hobbes’s
words,
“the
life
of
man
[is]
solitary,
poor,
nasty,
brutish,
and
short”
(Ch13
403).
Since
the
inherent
desires
of
humans
are
to
have
control,
which
leads
to
a
state
of
constant
warfare,
and
there
is
no
covenant,
“the
notions
of
right
and
wrong,
justice
and
injustice
have
no
place”
(Leviathan
Ch
13
404).
Each
woman
or
man
must
be
able
to
defend
themselves
and
what
they
have.
This
is
also
the
reason
why
there
is
no
property
in
the
state
of
nature.
If
there
are
no
laws,
covenants,
justice,
or
injustice‐
if
any
action
is
neither
right
nor
wrong,
nobody
can
claim
something
as
their
own.
For
that
reason,
humans
do
not
have
a
right
to
anything
in
the
state
of
nature;
there
is
“no
won,
no
propriety,
there
is
no
injustice”
(Ch
13
409).
In
the
state
of
nature,
woman
must
always
use
reason
to
preserve
her
life
against
enemies,
because
there
will
never
be
any
security.
Locke
has
a
completely
different
view
about
the
state
of
nature,
and
the
state
of
humans.
Locke
claims
that
our
natural
state
is
“a
state
of
perfect
freedom”
(Second
Treatise
of
Government
Ch
2
461).
People
are
free
to
do
what
they
want.
Women
and
men
also
live
in
“a
state
also
of
equality,
wherein
all
power
and
jurisdiction
is
reciprocal,
no
one
having
more
than
another”
(Ch
2
461).
No
man
is
forced
to
subject
himself
to
another;
all
are
equals.
In
the
state
of
nature,
no
man
or
woman
has
the
right
infringe
upon
others’
rights.
No
harm
can
be
done
to
another’s
“life,
health,
liberty,
or
possessions”
(Ch
2
462).
Every
person
in
the
state
of
nature
is
forced
to
defend
themselves,
and
try
their
hardest
to
save
the
rest
of
humankind,
by
not
doing
harm
to
another,
“unless
it
be
to
do
justice
to
an
offender”
(Ch
2
462).
Self‐preservation
is
the
most
important
aspect
to
living
in
the
state
of
nature
according
to
Locke.
Locke
claims
that
there
are
two
ways
to
consider
rights
to
property;
one
is
“natural
reason”
and
the
other
is
“revelation.”
Natural
reason
tells
us
that
since
man
has
a
right
to
self‐preservation,
he
also
has
the
right
to
take
the
things
he
needs
from
nature
to
survive‐
such
as
food
or
drink.
In
the
other
claim
to
property
called
revelation,
God
gave
the
earth
to
all
humans
in
common.
He
gave
men
and
women
this
world
so
that
they
could
then
take
advantage
of
it,
and
use
it
to
better
their
lives.
God
also
“gave
it
to
the
use
of
the
industrious
and
rational,
not
to
the
fancy
or
covetousness
of
the
quarrelsome
and
contentious”
(Second
Treatise
of
Government
Ch
5
469).
Women
and
men
have
the
right
to
use
the
fruits,
rivers,
and
inferior
animals
of
the
earth.
Even
though
the
earth
is
of
common
use
to
all,
there
is
a
factor
that
forces
the
men
and
women
to
have
property
of
their
own.
This
factor
is
labor.
Locke
argues
that
“whatsoever
then
he
removes
out
of
the
state
of
nature
hath
provided,
and
left
it
in,
he
hath
mixed
his
labour
with,
and
joined
to
it
something
that
is
his
own,
and
thereby
makes
it
his
property”
(Second
Treatise
of
Government
Ch
5
468).
From
the
moment
a
person
has
mixed
any
of
her
labor
with
an
object
of
the
common,
the
object
becomes
hers.
Labor
can
include
anything
from
picking
an
apple
from
a
tree,
to
using
wood
from
a
tree
and
fashioning
it
into
a
chair.
However,
Locke
also
claims
that
we
can’t
have
too
much
property.
Humans
can
only
have
“as
much
as
any
one
can
make
use
of
to
any
advantage
of
life
before
it
spoils…whatever
is
beyond
this,
is
more
than
his
share
and
belongs
to
others”
(Ch
5
469).
Each
person
should
have
just
enough
property
to
revel
in.
We
have
now
seen
the
different
views
of
Hobbes
and
Locke
about
whether
there
are
any
rights
to
property
in
the
state
of
nature.
I
believe
that
Hobbes
has
made
the
better
case
for
there
being
no
rights
to
property
in
the
state
of
nature.
Hobbes
made
a
very
sound
argument.
He
first
began
by
explaining
the
nature
of
humans.
Hobbes
claims
that
all
humans
are
born
with
inherent
desires,
and
I
think
we
have
many
reasons
to
agree
with
this
premise.
It
is
very
true
that
we
all
have
many
desires,
including
the
desire
to
eat,
drink,
and
have
shelter.
These
desires
drive
us
to
make
the
decisions
that
we
do.
Our
desires,
appetites,
hopes
and
fears,
that
are
the
driving
factors
in
our
everyday
actions
is
called
deliberation.
With
our
many
desires,
it
is
only
natural
that
we
should
want
to
obtain
power.
Hobbes
claims
that
we
all
seek
power
constantly
throughout
our
entire
lives.
By
setting
up
the
case
that
humans
are
born
with
desires,
it
only
logically
follows
that
humans
desire
to
have
power.
Therefore,
this
claim
is
sound.
It
also
logically
follows
that
the
state
of
nature
is
amoral,
since
there
can
be
no
judgment
on
anyone’s
desires.
These
various
desires
also
cause
conflict
among
men
and
women,
which
results
in
a
state
of
constant
warfare.
Also,
since
there
are
no
covenants
or
contracts
in
the
state
of
nature,
there
is
no
way
any
action
can
be
just
or
unjust.
His
premises
of
desires,
conflict,
and
equality
justify
all
of
Hobbes’s
conclusions
about
rights
to
property
in
the
state
of
nature.
On
the
other
hand,
Locke
claims
that
men
and
women
do
have
rights
to
property
in
nature.
However,
I
think
we
have
several
reasons
to
deny
this,
based
on
the
fact
that
his
argument
is
not
sound.
One
of
the
first
claims
that
Locke
makes
is
that
nobody
in
the
state
of
nature
has
more
power
than
another.
However,
if
everyone
had
an
equal
amount
of
power,
how
would
it
be
possible
for
anyone
to
keep
his
or
her
possessions?
Locke
also
makes
the
premise
that
in
the
state
of
nature,
it
is
a
person’s
duty
to
look
out
for
the
well
being
of
the
entire
human
race.
I
find
this
quite
illogical
and
impossible.
If
in
the
state
of
nature,
someone
must
look
out
for
himself
or
herself,
then
why
must
they
care
about
the
well
being
of
others?
If
Locke
claims
that
self‐preservation
is
the
most
important
aspect,
then
Locke
has
not
completely
justified
caring
about
the
state
of
others.
Locke
uses
religion
to
make
premises
about
property.
He
attempts
to
justify
common
property
by
saying
that
God
gave
this
earth
for
all
of
us
to
use.
However,
I
believe
that
by
using
religion,
Locke
does
not
completely
justify
or
fully
develop
his
previous
claims.
His
claims
of
the
equality
of
power
between
humans
do
not
fully
relate
to
God
giving
humans
the
world.
And
lastly,
the
entire
premise
of
taking
common
land
and
mixing
it
with
labor
to
create
property
has
many
flaws.
Imagine
if
I
decided
to
take
a
swim
in
the
ocean;
yes,
I
am
doing
labor
in
the
ocean,
but
does
that
make
it
mine?
Locke
does
not
address
problems
such
as
this
one.
In
the
beginning
of
this
paper,
I
laid
out
Hobbes’s
views
about
the
natural
state
of
man.
After
looking
at
this
natural
state
and
developing
upon
it,
we
were
able
to
see
how
Hobbes
came
to
the
conclusion
that
there
were
no
rights
to
property
in
the
state
of
nature.
I
then
did
the
same
for
Locke.
Locke
believed
that
someone
obtained
property
by
mixing
their
labor
with
the
common
or
nature,
bestowed
by
God.
By
comparing
the
differing
views
of
the
rights
to
property
of
Hobbes
and
Locke,
I
was
able
to
come
to
the
conclusion
that
Hobbes
had
a
more
sound
argument
than
Locke.
Hobbes
went
to
greater
lengths
to
describe
the
nature
of
humans
in
relationship
to
why
there
is
no
property.
Locke
however
didn’t
justify
his
claims
as
well
as
Hobbes.
Bibliography
Cahn,
Steven,
ed.
Classics
of
Political
and
Moral
Philosophy.
New
York:
Oxford
University
Press,
2002