Locke v Hobbes

 While Hobbes and Locke disagree on many fronts, they collectively agree with the baseline understanding that all humans are inherently equal. Hobbes specifies that he refers to a human’s mental and physical ability to preserve themselves when referring to equality. Locke seems to conclude that humans are equal and independent because they exist in states of perfect freedom naturally and therefore they possess equal amounts of freedom.

Interestingly, this premise of equality seems to imply different ideas for each philosopher. Hobbes suggests that since every human being has the same intrinsic capability to destroy one another, their equality is the very propagator of war. He explains that if any two men desire the same thing, and inevitably only one of them can get it, they will become enemies and seek to subdue the other in order to preserve themselves. Hobbes presents the prisoner’s dilemma here and explains that even if these humans had the rationality to consider each other in their dilemma, rather than just their self interest, there is no guarantee that the optimal choice would be made without a sovereign authority to ensure it. Therefore, to Hobbes, it is our intrinsic equality that necessitates regulatory bodies because equality also entails unconstrained power.

In contrast, Locke explains it is the very fact that we are equal that supposes the laws of nature. To Locke, equality does not need regulation, rather it comes with a prior understanding of the laws of nature. He explains these laws teach all of mankind to not harm another’s health, life, liberty or possessions. I would speculate that Locke would respond to the prisoner’s dilemma with this: Equal and free human beings who abide by the laws of nature will be supported with a framework that overcomes any sort of irrationality that would influence an agenda of maximization or selfishness. For Locke, the inherent equality of human beings entails a necessity to preserve all mankind, not just one's self. 


Comments

  1. Paul HurleyJanuary 22, 2026 at 12:04 AM

    The way you frame the issue of equality suggests that Hobbes and Locke "agree that all humans are inherently equal," but disagree about what follows from this agreed upon commitment to equality. But you discussion seems to suggest something else, that have completely different understandings of equality, hence aren't really agreeing about equality. You seem right that for Hobbes equality is about levels of skill, strength, intelligence, etc. But for Locke equality is equal moral standing. Hobbes thinks there is no moral status in the state of nature, so no equal moral standing, and Locke thinks we have very different levels of intelligence, strength, etc., hence reject Hobbesian equality.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We're all separate but equal

During my tutorial with Dylan yesterday, he brought up the SCOTUS case Brown vs. Board of Education in our discussion of a minimal state. Whilst reading Marx, I realized that both the legal implication (state according rights to individuals) and the societal implication (abolishment of the 'separate but equal' doctrine) of the case are relevant to the claims Marx is making.  Marx delineates between two societies -- political and civil -- and further between the two lives one leads in each -- public and private. In a political society, man is entitled to the liberties given to him by the state, and considers himself a member of a functional community. Marx hints at the mirage of political society, writing that man is “the imaginary member of an imaginary sovereignty, divested of his real, individual life, and infused with an unreal universality” (34). In such a society, he leads a public life, one in which the state can establish political equality by abolishing “the distinctio...
Read more

What Brettschneider Ought to Admit: Democracy Is Substantive

Although Corey Brettschneider presents his value theory of democracy as a third way between pure proceduralism and outcome-based accounts, his framework collapses into substantivism. Despite insisting that democracy cannot be reduced to “procedure-independent evaluations of outcomes,”(2) he explicitly grounds democratic legitimacy in substantive rights that “limit those policy outcomes that would fail to respect citizens as rulers.” (20). Legitimacy therefore hinges not merely on fair participation but on conformity to three independently specified values—equality of interests, political autonomy, and reciprocity. These values operate as external normative standards against which democratic decisions are judged. Brettschneider treats policies such as ex post facto laws or vote buying as democratically illegitimate regardless of procedural authorization, making clear that outcomes remain subject to direct moral assessment. This is not procedural democracy supplemented by rights; it is ...
Read more

'Enough and as Good' for Whom?

 Both Hobbes and Locke describe a state of nature grounded in equality and natural law. Yet, they reach sharply different conclusions about property. Hobbes denies any possibility of owning property in the state of nature. Locke, by contrast, argues that individuals may aquire private property prior to any government by mixing their labor with common resources. By allowing pre-political appropriation, Locke commits himself to moral constraints on ownership.  Locke introduces these limits through two provisos. The Spoiling proviso requires that an individual only claim ownership over land/natural resources to what one can use before it spoils, critizicing waste as a violation of natural law: "Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy" (21). To me, this limit is relatively clear and intuitive.  More demanding, however, is Locke's second proviso, claiming that appropriation is only legitimate if "enough, and as good" is left in common for others. At first...
Read more