Enlightenment Political Philosophy: Thomas Hobbes vs. John Locke vs. Rousseau

Beginning with Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), he was in favor of governmental absolutism. He argued this through his social contract theory. Social contract theory tries to prove the legitimacy of government by explaining why people should give up their freedom. The burden of proof is on the state to show why people should obey rather than live naturally. According to Hobbes, human psychology is fundamentally driven by desire for pleasure and aversion from pain. Furthermore, morally what we call good is what gives pleasure and what we call bad is what causes pain. Yet, he also recognized that individuals each had their own pleasures and pains which can be distinct from others. The things that people sought, he called “passions” and thus life becomes the pursuit of passion. The means to achieve one’s passion is done through reason, which is calculated by looking at the pros and cons of the method of achieving the passion. The final calculation before deciding to pursue one’s passion is one’s will. The ultimate passion is power, “So that in the first place, I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death”. No one will ever feel satisfied with what they have and will always look for more. Hobbes argued that without civilization and government, presupposing this psychological framework of human nature, people will use each other to maximize their passion for power. It is the reverse of Kant’s Kingdom of Ends. Since everyone views each other as a means to an end, they become perpetually skeptical and see everyone else as a threat to avoid being used and thus, “No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. 

Therefore, to escape this perpetual skepticism of others, humans must come together and make allies while restraining their passion for power over others and thus give up his freedom for peace. Yet, these groups of allies will wage war with each other and there might be civil war amongst allies. To avoid this, Hobbes argues that people need to forfeit all liberties to a government that controls the people. This government must make laws that apply to all people and be fair to all people to avoid civil war and thus provide security. This entails that the individual has no say in what is fair or just as the government is the impartial sovereign state above all. Hobbes believed that the individual will always be biased towards themselves and thus the government necessarily needs to be in charge. Thus, the best form of government, according to Thomas Hobbes, is an absolute monarchy.

Next, John Locke (1632-1704) begins with the same presuppositions as Hobbes i.e. the pain pleasure principle, yet they come to very different outcomes. He agrees that this entails that people instinctually calculate the methods to achieve their own pleasure and avoid pain. He also agrees with Hobbes that people will try to use others for this goal. However, where they disagree is where Hobbes affirms that people are out for each other’s throats, Locke states that the internal calculation of pleasure/pain is recognized amongst all individuals such that we treat each other as equals and be civil. Therefore, people would not act in self interest and accommodate each other. However, there will be a minority of individuals who are against this in pursuit of power. Furthermore, what one believes is best can be contrary to what others feel is best for community interest and thus lead to civil war. Thomas Hobbes says that people will naturally turn towards creating a government to whom people will submit to. John Locke, on the other hand, believes that creating a government will be calculated like every other pleasure or pain. For Locke, individuals will have to give up freedoms in forming a civilization. In nature, people had the rights of “life, health, liberty, or possessions” and they could give it up, or let it be controlled if they would be better protected under a government. One has a greater assurance of keeping their property if there are laws and police protecting it. If a person is to keep their life, liberty, and possessions then it would be the opposite of Hobbes’ government and therefore would be a limited one. If the government is unable to protect these inalienable rights or imposes laws against them then it would be illegitimate and the people can revolt to start their own government. This heavily influenced Thomas Jefferson when writing the Declaration of Independence and is therefore deeply rooted in the foundations of the United States. Locke believed that the branch of government that created laws would be different than the branch that enacts them. Locke further argued that the lawmakers should be a parliament which was elected by the people and the leader of the government would be the monarch. These laws need to be universal and fair to all citizens. Furthermore, there would be a judicial branch to interpret these universal laws. Locke also believed in the concept of ruling by the majority. If a single individual held all the power then they may act in self interest.  

Ending with Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778); while the enlightenment focuses on rationality and empiricism, romanticism is the reactionary reverse as it focuses on instinct and nature. This is expressed in the earliest works of Rousseau. He argued that the progress of arts and sciences have corrupted human morality and nature. A purely intellectual culture is the antithesis of what humans ought to abide by. Civilized society requires uniformity amongst its citizens such that our basic interactions with others are a mask of our true selves to fit in with society’s standards. This rigidity will lead to hypocrisy and inhibits human nature and therefore causes society to become immoral. One may ask if our advance in technology and sciences has truly led to a more happy and content society. Furthermore, has our purpose become to solely work ourselves to death in a mindless job that we convince ourselves to be fulfilling? Rousseau would argue that the simpler life is better. He believed that even Newton’s brilliant mathematical accomplishments were worthless as what does it truly contribute to humanities happiness? The average villager with a simple life, only focusing on their family and growing their crops needs nothing of the formulas Newton created.

For Rousseau, before society had established itself, man is a simple and peaceful creature who finds food and shelter easily. Society, however, brings the unnatural: competition, deceit, and aggression. One will not fall into these traits when there is an abundance of goods but once competition is introduced, an individual will attempt to gain an advantage over their fellow human to survive as there is pressure over resources. Then the question becomes, why did man develop society, a product that will lead to his downfall? The answer is simple, because he liked it better. Agriculture, technology, and property are too appealing to ignore. Yet, there are the same features that lead to class divisions and poverty. Rousseau makes this abundantly clear,

“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.”

Under what conditions is being in change legitimate? In other words, what makes social contract theory legitimate? Social contract theory, as stated earlier, tries to prove the legitimacy of government by explaining why people should give up their freedom. Rousseau believes that this kenosis of freedom should not be unconditional. “To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights [and duties] of humanity.” Freedom of choice, or liberty is a necessity for our morals established by our nature. Therefore, he is against rule by the strongest, which is a critique against Thomas Hobbes, or whoever has the most power will take over. However, he is also against governing by majority rule, which is a critique of John Locke, as he states,

 

“How have a hundred men who wish for a master the right to vote on behalf of ten who do not? The law of majority voting is itself something established by convention, and presupposes unanimity, on one occasion at least.”

What this quote is saying is, if 100 people want to pick a leader, but 10 people don't want to be part of that decision, it doesn't seem right for the 100 people to make the choice for everyone as those 10 peoples’ voices are equally valuable and to deny this is to deny their humanity. However, if it is unanimous that majority rule is best then it is by convention rather than natural right. Rousseau then believes the best form of government is, 

“The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone and remain as free as before.”

One has to be both united with others while not giving up their individual liberty. Quite the difficult proposition. Rousseau believes the answer is when the sovereign is the ‘general will’.

The general will is not majority rule, however, is it not unanimity either, nor is it the sum of everyone’s wills, or compromise. One ought not to be bound by laws they disagree with. The general will arises out of a dialectical method. Everyone must come together to debate and only then the ‘general will’ will be discovered and self interest will be abolished voluntarily. One’s self interest will become the interest of the community. However, it may be argued that this form of government is best for small groups rather than nations. Rousseau may rebut that the nation is an illegitimate form of government. When the general will is established it becomes morally binding upon each individual as it is in the best interest of the community. For the general will to be established it must involve the entire community and they must engage in the dialectical process. Rousseau further states, 

“It follows from what has gone before that the general will is always right and tends to the public advantage; but it does not follow that the deliberations of the people are always equally correct.”

What this means is that the general will is always correct as it is from the people even if the people are incorrect in their conclusion. Rousseau does indeed argue that the general will, as an expression of the collective will of the people aiming at the common good, is inherently right or virtuous. However, Rousseau also acknowledges that the deliberations and decisions made by the people may be incorrect, but as long as a general will arises, it is correct. The people may come to a less efficient or incorrect method to solve their problem but as long as they come together and their freedoms are not interrupted, it is right but not objective (at least that is my interpretation). Furthermore, to establish the general will, there must be a legislator, or lawgiver. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 

“However, Rousseau also clearly believes that the mere contemplation of self interest would be inadequate to generate a general will. This may partly concern issues of compliance, since selfish citizens who can will the general will might still not be moved to obey it. But Rousseau also seems to believe that citizen virtue is a necessary condition for the emergence of the general will in the first place. This presents him with a problem for which his figure of the legislator is one supposed solution…. The legislator therefore has the function of inspiring a sense of collective identity in the new citizens that allows them to identify with the whole and be moved to support legislation that will eventually transform them and their children into good citizens.”

The lawgiver helps and leads the people into formulating the general will. The general will sets the normals and legislature of society. The government is the expression of general will to execute these laws into actuality. Rousseau believes in democracy in its purest form. 

My question is to you, reader, who do you most agree with out of the three thinkers? Where do you disagree with them? Do you have any alternative ideas for the ideal government? Let me know in the comments below!