Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
Hobbes argues that we should establish an awesome Leviathan with (almost) unlimited power to provide the security we need to survive and flourish. Locke does not. Why not, and what are the ends of political society for Locke?
Sample Answer
The Ends of Political Society: Hobbes vs. Locke
Political philosophers have long debated the nature and purpose of political society. Two prominent figures in this discourse, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, present contrasting views on the establishment and ends of political society. While Hobbes argues for the need to establish an awe-inspiring Leviathan with almost unlimited power to ensure security, Locke takes a different stance. This essay will explore why Locke rejects Hobbes’ proposition and delve into the ends of political society as envisioned by Locke.
Hobbes, in his seminal work “Leviathan,” argues that humans live in a state of nature characterized by a perpetual state of war, where life is “nasty, brutish, and short.” According to Hobbes, to escape this chaotic existence, individuals must enter into a social contract with one another and establish a powerful sovereign authority, the Leviathan. This all-encompassing entity would hold absolute power and authority to maintain order and security. Hobbes believed that only through such a powerful central authority could individuals be protected from the inherent selfishness and aggression of human nature.
Locke, on the other hand, takes a more nuanced approach. In his treatise “Two Treatises of Government,” he challenges Hobbes’ pessimistic view of human nature and the necessity of an all-powerful sovereign. Contrary to Hobbes, Locke believes that humans are born with natural rights to life, liberty, and property. He argues that individuals have the capacity for reason and moral judgment, which can guide them towards peaceful coexistence.
For Locke, the primary purpose of political society is not merely security but the protection and preservation of these natural rights. He posits that individuals willingly enter into a social contract to establish a limited government that upholds their rights and promotes the common good. Unlike Hobbes’ Leviathan, Locke’s government is not an all-powerful entity but rather a representative body accountable to the people it governs.
Locke’s rejection of an unlimited sovereign authority stems from his belief in the consent of the governed. He argues that political power must be derived from the consent of the people, and any government exceeding its mandate risks violating the social contract. According to Locke, if a government fails to protect the natural rights of its citizens or becomes tyrannical, individuals have the right to resist and even overthrow it.
Additionally, Locke emphasizes that political societies exist to serve the interests of the people and promote their welfare. He argues that governments are responsible for ensuring justice, protecting property rights, and creating an environment conducive to individual freedom and prosperity. For Locke, political society is not solely about security but also about enabling individuals to flourish and pursue their own happiness within the bounds of natural law.
In conclusion, while Hobbes advocates for an awe-inspiring Leviathan with unlimited power to provide security, Locke rejects this proposition. Locke’s vision of political society rejects absolute power in favor of limited government accountable to the people it governs. For Locke, the ends of political society extend beyond security alone; they encompass the protection of natural rights, promotion of individual freedom, and creation of conditions for human flourishing. Through their contrasting perspectives, Hobbes and Locke contribute significantly to our understanding of political theory, raising important questions about the nature and purpose of political society.
