Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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