In their historical context, compare and contrast the main theoretical perspectives of any two political theorists discussed in the module.
...tence. In Hobbes ‘State of Nature’ even if there is no violence, there is still a state of war, as there is a continual threat of warfare and violence breaking out . Hobbes accepts that even in the state of nature there are ‘natural laws’ which he says are arrived at by reason, he states these are not laws but conclusions. However he argues that as laws can only be created by an authority with the right to do so and if we accept that the conclusions arrived at by reason, are delivered by God who commands all things then they can be called laws . He lists these natural laws which are the principles by which rational individuals are bound but he also states that within the state of nature, everyone has the ‘natural’ right to everything . In order for those within a ‘State of Nature’ to escape, Hobbes’s solution, developed from his first, second and third laws of nature, is for them to join together into a society, to give up their absolute freedom in exchange for the protection offered through a ‘Social Contract’ . This contract between individuals places all authority with the sovereign and all obligations with the subject . The sovereign possesses all the powers of the society or state and these are indivisible as in Hobbes view to divide these powers leads to the demise of the society . If the sovereign creates laws they have to be obeyed whether good or bad. Hobbes only allows for a subject to stop obeying the sovereign if he no longer receives protection . For Hobbes society can only exist through the power of the sovereign and without it man reverts to a state of nature. It is interesting to note that Hobbes accepted that the sovereign could be a monarchy, an oligarchy, or a democracy . The central argument of the ‘Leviathan’ is to show the need for and why it is acceptable for individuals to consent to the ruling of an absolute sovereign. However those within the social contract retain the right to ‘self-preservation’ which they had in a ‘State of Nature’ this continues, even if other rights have been surrendered in the social contract. In contrast to Hobbes pessimistic view of human nature, the other political philosopher under consideration, John Locke, believed that co-operation between individuals is in fact possible within the ‘State of Nature’, without the constant threat of warfare. In John Locke’s writing on the ‘State of Nature’ as outlined in ‘Two Treatise of Government (1689)’ His perception of human nature is benign and positive, his view is that man is naturally social and he proposes a far more attractive ‘State of Nature’. Locke like Hobbes saw all men as free and equal, however he differed from Hobbes in that he believed that humans would be bound by a series of God-given natural laws that prevent individuals from harming one another . His description of the state of nature is that; “Men are naturally in a state of perfect freedom to order their own actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit within the bounds of the Law of Nature and without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man ” He Law of Nature requires that man is; “Bound to preserve himself” “To preserve the rest of mankind” Locke’s view of the ‘Laws of Nature’ differs with Hobbes’s ‘Conclusions or Theorems’ which Hobbes argued are arrived at by reason but can be considered the word of God. Locke believed that the Laws of Nature are fundamental to the ‘State of Nature’ and are the Law of God. Locke starts from the assumption that God exists and gave the Earth and all it contains to mankind in common . His argument is that as the law of nature exists and the law, which is Gods Law , obligates all to accept . Then when man is born into the State of Nature he is governed by those laws, which he describes as ‘reason’ . Consequently for Locke, whilst individuals are free to do as they please; This is not a state of licence Locke believed that individuals are able to enforce these natural laws and if an individual was attacked without good cause, then he has the right to punish the aggressor, because the laws of nature forbid anyone from harming another without justification for doing so . This right to punish extends to those who have witnessed the harm or been informed of it, giving the third person the right to punish the wrong doer, as deemed fit in order to protect and deter . Locke recognises that this situation could lead to anarchy with unfettered prejudice and self-interest invading or endangering the freedom of others . Here the differences with Hobbes become blurred as Locke appears to be recognising a darker side of human nature with consequences similar to Hobbes ‘State of War’ Like Hobbes, Locke’s solution for individuals to move from a state of nature to a society is through the people uniting under a ‘Social Contract’ to create a ‘Political Society’ in order to gain advantages they could not achieve individually in a state of nature. These advantages are gained through making a contract with a government to protect their ‘property’ which, he describes as ‘lives, liberties and estates’. Under this contract it is mutually agreed that individuals will surrender a degree of their natural freedom to ‘Government’ in order to gain a higher level of safety. Whilst this compares with Hobbes approach Locke’s view of the relationship between society and government is very different. For Locke this contractual relationship is such that all the obligations are on the part of the Government. “They are to govern by promulgated established laws”; “These laws ought to be designed for no other ultimately but for the good of the people”. The power to create and enforce laws is entrusted upon the individual or group to act for the common good of all and provided the government keeps the contract, the governed owe their loyalty. It follows from this that if a government fails to meet these contract terms they will have broken the terms of the contract and will thereby no longer have the consent of the people to govern and should be removed from office. Whilst this ability to remove a government from power appears to be in complete contrast to Hobbes views, if as Hobbes says the individual has retained the right of the individual to self preservation and from his Laws of Nature which allow men to join together in society then in could be concluded th...