A natural right is the concept of fundamental liberties inherent in the nature of universal beings that exist above the framework laws or civil institutions. In essence, natural rights are those that exist regardless of its enforcement by a governing body.
Both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes put forth relevant theories on the social contract of men and the laws of nature; however the semblance ends there. Though the theories are similarly based to some respect, the analysis of the nature or existence of such inherent rights is distinctly different between the two theorists. The most notable difference which carries into the differences in higher theory is Hobbes’s belief that man is not a social being and that the institution of society is exactly that, an institution that would cease to exist without the power of state influence to maintain it. This fundamental principle establishes the base on which Hobbes would postulate that in exchange for his own life, man concedes any and all rights he may possess to the state which is markedly different than Locke’s notion that man inherently possesses certain inalienable liberties; liberties that the state exists to protect. The disparity between the two theories can be better understood when we reexamine the basic tenets each holds with respect to jus naturale and the natural state of man.
First consider the Hobbesian view of human nature. According to Hobbes, man does not exist as a social animal. The existence of a society is strictly contingent on the power of an established state. Rather, man exists simply as physical objects whose actions can be qualified as complex and mechanistic. Man does develop certain desires and impulses which he has the right to act on, and this he is motivated to satisfy his personal desires. The whole of human actions and decisions are fully based on this motivation to satiate personal desires. Human beings are therefore free to act however one deems fit pursuant to his personal inclinations. Thus the fundamental right of man according to Hobbes derives itself from man’s pursuit of self preservation which he refers to as “a necessity of nature.” Man has the right to follow this fundamental nature to satisfy self desires.
No society exists in this natural state of man. On the contrary, all men exist individually, seeking individual satisfaction and motivated strictly based on self preservation. This ultimately results in man’s natural state of existence to be defined as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Furthermore, man does not possess the capacity to reason with his natural state or possess any constructive knowledge that would allow him to resolve disputes with other men. Since what is good and just is simply whatever each individually deems as satisfactory to his own desires, the knowledge of good and evil essentially does not exist and as a result, men in principle will come into conflict with one another, what Hobbes calls the “war of all against all.” The only possible form of peace can exist only when men concede their personal liberties to the authority of a common government whereby men develop Hobbes’s social contract, whereby you are loosely granted the right not to be killed. Civil society therefore is the willful application of force by the common government to establish mutual protection of the contract; an institution of the state and not a natural institution of man. To Hobbes, the state precedes civil society.
Thus Hobbes states this about natural rights of men: men are only obligated to self preservation as it is a necessity of nature, and to deny ones nature is to deny ones existence as a human being. Men have no obligations by birth or nature, to anyone or anything aside from himself. This in principle grants all men unlimited rights and liberties. The important element here is the insistence that these rights are strictly non-obligatory and represent man’s complete liberty in the natural state. However, the conflict inherent in the natural state is that men will inevitably come into war against each other when all of their liberties are unbounded. This complete lack of limitations provides man with an undesirable social condition. As a result, man concedes many of his personal liberties and establishes a system of obligations in order to establish civil society. Hobbes refuses to derive natural rights from natural law, which according to Hobbes represents the complete opposite of liberty. In effect, Hobbesian rights come prior to law, whether that law exists naturally or institutionally.
Let is now consider Locke’s derivation of natural right. Locke states that men are indeed social animals. For Locke, humans are motivated by reason, in addition to the emotions and desires that Hobbes put forth. Men are not only self-concerned but also altruistic in nature. This contrasts sharply with Hobbes, who denies the existence of a social sphere of human nature. Furthermore, since men are reasonable beings, they are capable of self rule and can be entrusted to act in accordance with the interests of others in addition to his personal motivations. Again, Hobbes would contend that humans are incapable of any form of self rule since we are desire-driven beings. Locke argues than men are capable of discerning right from wrong since they have the capacity to reason. This is not to say that Locke believes all people will behave in accordance with their reason, for man is certainly fallible. Thus, in the natural state, peace is attainable and individuals are fully capable of coexisting in peace and civility under the premise of self rule. Locke then explains that men bind themselves to a social agreement that states that each individual concedes to right to personally enact punishments and allows the social body to establish a system of maintaining just order. As a result, each individual is granted certain inalienable rights which include the right to life, liberty, and just protection of personal property. Again, Hobbes posits that the social contract simply guarantees the right not to be killed, and even that right is loosely granted since the sovereign is justified in all his actions. Thus, According to Locke, the civil society is not a product of the state and precedes the state. The legitimacy of the state is defined by the social order established by the individuals who enter into the social contract.
For Locke, man is capable of far greater than simple, mechanistic action. Man possesses the special capacity to reason and govern one’s own desires and decisions. We see this clearly in paragraph 56 where he appeals to the biblical first man stating, “Adam was created a perfect man, his body and mind in full possession of their strength and reason, and so was capable from the first instant of his being to provide for his own support and preservation, and govern his actions according to the dictates of the law of reason which God had implanted in him.” Contrast this to the idea of a nasty and brutish human existence that can only lead to a bellum omnium contra omnes. Locke disagrees strongly to Hobbes’s assertion that the state of nature must exist as a state of war. War is unreasonable and undesirable and therefore individuals would intentionally avoid belligerence on favor of negotiating more peaceful measures of coexistence. Hobbes would disagree that a peaceful coexistence is possible, due to the fact that he also makes this assertion based on the premise that man does not inherently possess the capacity to reason, especially with one another.
When considering the differences between Hobbesian and Lockean theories on natural rights and liberties, it is also important to consider what each defines as a liberty. Hobbes argues that since human beings are completely desire-driven, personal liberty can be defined as the freedom from constraints that would in principle prevent one from satisfying their personal goals. Human purpose resides on the ability to fulfill whatever it is that man desires and any limitation or hindrance to that pursuit qualifies itself as a breach of personal liberty. Locke on the other hand would argue that our capacity to reason allow us to understand what it is we need to do in order to accomplish our goals and satisfy our desires. As a result, men will establish whatever rules and regulation they find fit in order for them to reach their desired goals. In essence, true personal liberty lies in the freedom to self-regulate. Regulations therefore serve not as a hindrance to freedom but rather a justifiable means to a common end. Thus, it is our reason that provides us the justification for self rule and allows us to practice what can be considered a more proactive approach to maintaining personal liberty.
Hobbes was one of the first theorists to chart out the philosophical foundations of human nature and the rules and rights that we may or may not derive from our nature. He was one of the first to deviate from the traditional concept of personal obligation superseding personal rights. Although a Hobbesian state of human nature paints a more pessimistic picture on human capacity, it also maintains the importance of orderly state structure in avoiding the anarchical dilemma posed by man. Nevertheless, Locke justifies many of his claims in opposition to the Hobbesian ideal of the natural laws that govern human existence by incorporating the Enlightenment idea of man’s inherent capacity to reason. Locke also appeals to a spiritual element in his philosophy that Hobbes chose to exclude and develops what some would argue is a more optimistic picture on human nature and human capacity. Certainly much of Lockean theory regarding civil and political society can be seen to have heavily influenced many Western nations of today.
No comments:
Post a Comment