The State and the Individual: Hobbes vs.

Locke
Introduction

Western political thought has been significantly shaped by the contrasting views of Thomas
Hobbes and John Locke on the nature of the state and the individual. These two philosophers,
despite their shared concern with the concept of the social contract, presented vastly different
understandings of human nature, the state’s role, and individual rights. While Hobbes believed
that humans in their natural state are driven by self-interest and are in constant conflict, Locke
viewed the state of nature more optimistically, seeing humans as capable of reason and
cooperation. Their divergent theories have had lasting implications on the development of
political philosophy, especially regarding the relationship between the state and the individual.

Hobbes and Locke were both products of their respective historical contexts. Hobbes wrote his
most famous work, Leviathan (1651), during the chaos of the English Civil War. This period,
marked by intense conflict between the monarchy and Parliament, deeply influenced Hobbes'
view that only a powerful, centralized authority could prevent society from descending into
disorder. Locke, in contrast, wrote during the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution (1688),
which saw the overthrow of King James II and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy.
His work, Second Treatise of Government (1689), was shaped by the desire to create a political
theory that protected individual rights while limiting governmental power. The political
turbulence of these periods formed the backdrop for their theories, which continue to resonate in
modern political debates about authority, liberty, and governance.

This paper will explore Hobbes’ and Locke’s contrasting views on the state and the individual,
analyzing their theories of human nature, the social contract, the role of the sovereign, and
individual rights. By comparing their ideas, we will understand how their theories laid the
groundwork for modern political thought, especially concerning the limits of government power
and the protection of individual freedoms.

Hobbes’ Theory of the State

Thomas Hobbes’ theory of the state is grounded in a pessimistic view of human nature. In
Leviathan, he famously states that in the state of nature, individuals act based on self-interest,
driven by basic impulses such as fear, desire, and self-preservation. For Hobbes, human beings in
this natural state are in constant conflict, leading to a condition that he calls the "war of all
against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). In such a state, Hobbes argues, there is no justice or
injustice, as there are no established laws or moral standards. The lack of any higher authority to
arbitrate disputes results in a chaotic and violent existence. As Hobbes writes, "Life in the state
of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
To escape this state of perpetual conflict, Hobbes argues that individuals must form a social
contract, giving up all of their natural rights in exchange for the protection of a sovereign
authority. This social contract is not a mutual agreement between equals but rather a pact in
which individuals agree to surrender their individual freedoms to a sovereign, or Leviathan, who
holds absolute power. The sovereign’s primary role is to maintain order, provide security, and
enforce laws. The authority of the sovereign is absolute, as any limitation on its power would
lead to disorder and the return to the state of nature.

Hobbes’ vision of the sovereign as an absolute ruler has drawn significant criticism. Many
political theorists, including John Locke, rejected the idea that such unchecked authority could
be justified. Critics argue that Hobbes' theory is overly authoritarian, as it demands total
submission from individuals and leaves no room for dissent or rebellion. Furthermore, Hobbes’
views have been criticized for underestimating the potential for cooperation and mutual benefit
in human societies. Despite these critiques, Hobbes' ideas have been influential in shaping
theories of strong, centralized state power and have found resonance in modern debates about
security and governance, particularly in times of crisis.

Locke’s Theory of the State

John Locke offers a radically different view of human nature and the role of government. Unlike
Hobbes, Locke argues that in the state of nature, human beings are generally peaceful, rational,
and capable of cooperation. In Locke’s view, the state of nature is not a state of war but a
condition in which individuals enjoy perfect freedom and equality. This natural condition is
governed by natural law, which is rooted in reason and dictates that individuals should not harm
others in their life, liberty, or property. Thus, Locke’s state of nature is not a chaotic war of all
against all, as Hobbes describes, but rather a state of relative peace in which individuals can
pursue their own interests while respecting the rights of others.

However, Locke acknowledges that the state of nature is imperfect and prone to conflict. While
individuals have the right to protect their natural rights (life, liberty, and property), there is no
common authority to adjudicate disputes or ensure the protection of these rights. This leads
Locke to propose a social contract, in which individuals agree to form a government to protect
their natural rights. Unlike Hobbes, however, Locke’s social contract does not require
individuals to surrender all of their rights to the government. Instead, they consent to create a
government with limited powers, whose primary purpose is to safeguard individual rights.

The most important feature of Locke’s theory is the idea that political power is derived from the
consent of the governed. According to Locke, government authority is legitimate only if it serves
to protect the natural rights of individuals. Locke’s government is a limited government, bound
by the rule of law and accountable to the people. Furthermore, Locke argues that if a government
violates the social contract and fails to protect the natural rights of its citizens, the people have
the right to overthrow it. This revolutionary idea laid the groundwork for democratic principles
such as the right to resistance and the idea that rulers must be accountable to the people.
Locke’s theory has been highly influential in the development of liberal democratic thought,
particularly in the context of the American and French Revolutions. His emphasis on individual
rights, property, and limited government has shaped modern constitutionalism and the design of
democratic institutions. However, Locke’s theories are not without their critics. Some argue that
Locke’s defense of private property—particularly his labor theory of property—has been used to
justify inequality and exploitation. Others question his assumption that individuals in the state of
nature are inherently rational and capable of cooperation.

Comparison of Hobbes and Locke

The differences between Hobbes and Locke’s views on the state and the individual are profound.
The most striking difference lies in their views on human nature. For Hobbes, human beings are
naturally selfish and motivated by fear and self-preservation. In contrast, Locke believes that
humans are capable of reason and cooperation. While Hobbes sees the state of nature as a state of
war, Locke views it as a relatively peaceful condition governed by natural law.

In terms of the social contract, Hobbes and Locke present starkly different visions. Hobbes’
social contract requires individuals to surrender all of their rights to a sovereign, who holds
absolute power. For Locke, the social contract involves the creation of a government with limited
powers, whose authority is contingent upon the protection of individual rights. Locke’s
government is designed to safeguard liberty and property, while Hobbes’ sovereign is concerned
primarily with maintaining order and security.

The role of the sovereign is another area of stark contrast. Hobbes believes that the sovereign
must have absolute power to prevent the collapse of society into anarchy. Locke, on the other
hand, argues that government power should be limited and accountable to the people. For Locke,
the people retain the right to overthrow a government that fails to protect their rights, while
Hobbes denies any such right of resistance.

These differences also extend to their views on liberty. Hobbes views liberty as the absence of
impediments to self-preservation, but in Hobbes’ system, individual liberty is subordinate to the
sovereign’s power. Locke, however, places a much greater emphasis on the protection of
individual rights and liberties, and his theory seeks to ensure that government power is always
limited by the need to respect these rights.

Implications for Modern Political Thought

Hobbes and Locke’s theories have had a profound influence on modern political thought,
shaping debates about the role of the state, individual rights, and the balance of power in political
systems. Hobbes’ theory of absolute sovereignty has influenced political systems that prioritize
order and security, particularly in authoritarian regimes. His emphasis on a powerful central
authority has been invoked in justifications for state control in the face of national security
threats. The logic of Hobbes’ theory can be seen in debates about the balance between liberty
and security, particularly in times of war or crisis.

Locke’s theories, on the other hand, have been foundational to liberal democratic thought. His
emphasis on individual rights, limited government, and the consent of the governed has shaped
modern democratic institutions and constitutional design. Locke’s ideas influenced the American
Revolution and the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, particularly in its emphasis on checks and
balances, the protection of natural rights, and the separation of powers. Locke’s theory of the
right to revolution also continues to be relevant in discussions about political legitimacy and the
right of citizens to challenge oppressive regimes.

Both thinkers have shaped modern discussions about the role of the state in individual lives. In
the 20th and 21st centuries, their theories have been invoked in debates over civil rights, the
welfare state, and the balance between individual liberty and government power. Locke’s theory,
with its emphasis on protecting individual rights and limiting state power, remains foundational
to liberal political philosophy, while Hobbes’ vision of strong, centralized authority continues to
resonate in discussions of state power and national security.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the political theories of Hobbes and Locke offer contrasting views on the nature of
the state and the individual. Hobbes advocates for an absolute sovereign to maintain order, while
Locke proposes a government limited by the protection of natural rights and accountable to the
people. Despite their differences, both philosophers have made enduring contributions to
Western political thought, influencing contemporary debates on the role of the state, individual
rights, and the balance between security and freedom. Hobbes' authoritarianism and Locke's
liberalism continue to provide the foundation for understanding modern political systems and the
complex relationship between government and the individual.

The End