Impediments

Despite their concurrency on the concept of a “social contract”, Hobbes and Locke have wildly divergent views of human nature, particularly in its natural state. Thusly, their concepts of the ideal society and the recommended incentive to join such a society differ greatly as well. The social contract is necessarily informed by one’s individual notion of the nature of humanity as a whole, and both Hobbes and Locke bring their own viewpoint to the concept of a social contract.

The question of human nature is one that must necessarily be answered for the advancement of any societal argument. For any society to be hypothetically built, be it utopic or dystopic, the essential nature of mankind must be at the very least guessed at. Hobbes’ view of mankind is by far the less optimistic of the two. His opinion of mankind as “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” (Packet p.50) is cynical in the extreme, as is his assumption that “Out of Civil States, there is always Warre of everyone against every one” (Packet p.50). On the one hand, it is difficult to deny, historically speaking, that mankind is prone to war over the most foolish causes imaginable, in pursuit of, as Hobbes says, “First, Competition; Secondly, Diffidence; Thirdly, Glory” (Packet p.50). However, to reduce every man to a murderous animal in times of crisis seems slightly extreme. Locke, in contrast, believes that humanity in nature, living in small family groups, is virtuous and truly free. As “all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for their advantage” (Packet p.56), humankind naturally stays in small nomadic familial groups, splitting naturally when it becomes necessary. Both views have at least some legitimacy, though both are too extreme to contain all the various possibilities of the natural state of humanity. In Hobbes’ case, the idea that humans are always uncaring and devoid of altruism is far too pessimistic to allow for any possibility of human development, and the concept of humanity being a solitary creature in nature is highly unlikely at best. In Locke’s case, the concept of humanity’s essential virtue in nature is, unfortunately, easily disproven by much of human history. The most likely view of humanity in nature, thusly, is of a flawed, but not irredeemable, hunter-gatherer people in tightly-knit clan or familial groups.

The shared concept of a social contract grows more necessary as the number of hypothetical humans grows as well. Here, Locke’s concept of the devolution of the natural state into war is easily applicable. If, for example, two of the familial groups were to meet, or run out of resources, war might well result, necessitating an alliance or truce. Eventually, this would grow towards the society and implied contract therein. Hobbes’ view of the social contract fits with his dim view of humanity. As the condition of man, in his view, is a “condition of Warre of every one against every one” (Packet p.51), humanity’s passions must be tightly controlled for anything even resembling a functional society to exist. Liberty, thusly, is “the absence of externall Impediments: which Impediments may oft take way part of a mans power to do what hee would” (Packet p.51). Hobbes argues for the elimination of all possible danger from human society, which necessitates some loss of freedom. The controlling nature of such a society draws parallels to Plato’s “Crito”, in which the state is referred to as the very nearly literal father of its citizens. Entrusting one’s liberty to the state for little or no immediate gain is far too much of a gamble for many to stomach, and it is not impossible to imagine the potential backlash should the hypothetical human tribe be asked to join this society. Locke’s contract is by far the more appealing, promising immediate security and a constant evolution of society, with the added promise of the ability to leave or change the society should it become too restrictive. While, in theory, Hobbes’ societal contract may be safer, Locke’s contract is more attractive to a potential constituent of the nascent society.

Locke’s society closely resembles the macrocosmic state of societies as a whole, accepting and embracing the eventual evolution and passing of old ideas. Hobbes’ society refuses to accept this, hoping for an eternal reign that will inevitably fail and give way to new ideals. Though it has the best interests of humanity in mind, its inflexible nature and pessimistic attitude towards human nature almost ensures an attitude of resentment among its people. Whereas Locke’s society could hypothetically still exist, in some form, centuries from its conception, Hobbes’ would inevitably fall as its citizens grew tired of the yoke and, as mankind is wont to do, threw it off.