While both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes presented philosophies that functioned within the field of social contracts, they differed significantly in their approaches and interpretations. Locke’s view on human nature can be seen as more optimistic when compared to Hobbes and primarily centered on tolerance and reason. According to Locke, the state of nature may be pre-political but not pre-moral. His definition upheld individuals as equal to one another and naturally capable of confronting and living by the law of nature.
By extension, morality serves as a factor of God, whose central command can be defined as doing no harm to others in relation to their liberty, life, health, and possessions. Locke derived this view on human nature due to his belief that all individuals belong to God and are, therefore, all bound under his rules. In terms of liberty, Locke similarly derived from Biblical contexts, which indicated that the state of nature permits individuals freedom and the pursuit of their ambitions. Locke also showed that the restrictions that did exist due to the law of nature provided humanity with peace rather than hardship.
On the other hand, Thomas Hobbes believes the state of nature, a total absence of social contract or governing, to be detrimental to humanity. Hobbes perceives human nature to be much more mechanistic and driven by needs above any other motivation. As such, in a world in which social rules or all forms of government ceased to exist, Hobbes speculates that the attempt to achieve individual needs among people would cause a “war of all against all” (Vaugh, 2012). This would lead to an overall poor, solitary, and complex life for a majority of people. Similarly to Locke, Hobbes believes that within this state of nature, all men are able to share equal amounts of power and ability. This also suggests that any formulation of social contracts may be met with doubt or suspicion due to the fact that equal ability rejects the notion of exchange. Hobbes defines power as the ability to compel another individual, which turns to the use of force in the absence of social contracts and governance. Here, Hobbes also provides a measurement of justice, which he believes would not be upheld without a central power or a Leviathan, as individuals are likely to avoid punishment.
Thus, Locke and Hobbes share a number of fundamental interpretations of human nature, such as equality among individuals, at least in the sense of value. Similarly, both Hobbes and Locke identify the contradictions between human needs and morality, which can stew conflict. However, Locke and Hobbes differ in what they believe human beings usually use as primary motivating factors of their nature as well as the role of the laws of nature on human behavior. Locke’s more optimistic perspective outlines that the base state of nature is inherently good and protective of human lives, whereas Hobbes believes that such a state is likely to pit individuals against one another. Similarly, Locke identifies dreams and passions as the most impactful motivators of human nature, while Locke believes that needs and more base desires have a more profound influence.
Both approaches provide insight into the human condition and also pose specific issues. Locke’s understanding of that which is suitable both in nature and humanity relies on the belief that the source of good is God, which is not applicable for many, and it does little to delve into the factors that influence human behavior. However, it can also be observed that much of human nature is guided by higher beliefs in abstract ambitions or faith. As such, it can be suggested that when the basic needs of individuals are met, they are more likely to rely on their passions to guide their nature. As such, Hobbes’ theory is likely more representative of reality though it is cohesive with many notions that are described by Locke.
Reference
Vaugh, Lewis. (2012). Philosophy here and now: Powerful ideas in everyday life. Oxford University Press.