While both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke utilized the concept of a social contract to explain the origins of political authority, their approaches differed significantly. While Hobbes advocated for a powerful Leviathan with near-absolute power, Locke rejected this notion, favoring a more limited government focused on protecting individual rights.

Here are the key reasons why Locke disagreed with Hobbes on the Leviathan:

1. Natural Rights: Unlike Hobbes, who saw humans primarily as self-interested creatures driven by fear and desire, Locke believed humans possessed natural rights to life, liberty, and property. These rights existed in a pre-political state and were inherent to humanity. Therefore, no government could claim absolute authority over them.

2. Limited Government: To protect these natural rights, Locke argued for a limited government with clearly defined powers. This government’s authority would be derived from the consent of the governed, not from any inherent right to rule.

3. Rule of Law: Locke believed that the law should apply equally to everyone, including those in power. This ensured that no individual or group could arbitrarily infringe on the rights of others.

4. Separation of Powers: To prevent the abuse of power, Locke advocated for the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial powers. This diffusion of power further protected individual rights from government overreach.

5. Right of Revolution: If a government failed to protect individual rights or abused its power, Locke asserted that the people had a right to resist and replace it. This right of revolution served as a check against tyranny and ensured that the government remained accountable to the people.

The Ends of Political Society for Locke:

For Locke, the primary purpose of a government wasn’t absolute security, as Hobbes believed, but the preservation of individual rights and the promotion of the public good. This included:

• Protecting life, liberty, and property: Ensuring the safety and freedom of individuals was paramount.
• Promoting justice and equality: The law should apply fairly and impartially to all.
• Encouraging economic prosperity: A stable and secure environment was essential for individuals to pursue their economic interests.
• Facilitating cooperation and coordination: The government could facilitate collective action on issues that individuals couldn’t handle alone.
• Promoting knowledge and education: A well-educated population was essential for a thriving society.

Limits of Political Authority: Locke vs. Rousseau

While both Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed in a social contract between the people and the government, they differed in their views on the limits of political authority.

John Locke:

• Believed in individual rights as the foundation of any legitimate government.
• Advocated for limited government with clearly defined powers.
• Supported the rule of law and separation of powers to prevent abuse.
• Recognized the right of revolution against a tyrannical government.
• Argued that the government’s primary purpose was to protect individual rights and promote the public good.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

• Emphasized the concept of the “general will,” representing the collective interest of the community.
• Saw individual rights as subordinate to the general will.
• Advocated for a more participatory form of government where citizens directly participated in decision-making.
• Believed that the government’s primary purpose was to ensure the common good, even if it meant restricting individual liberties.
• Considered legitimate dissent harmful to society and advocated for its suppression.

Key differences:

• Emphasis on individual rights: Locke placed individual rights at the core of his political philosophy, while Rousseau emphasized the collective good.
• Role of government: Locke envisioned a limited government focused on protecting individual rights, while Rousseau saw it as a more active force shaping the collective will.
• Limits of authority: Locke recognized a right of revolution against a tyrannical government, while Rousseau advocated for suppressing dissent and upholding the general will.

Conclusion:

Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau presented vastly different perspectives on the nature of political authority and its limits. While Hobbes favored a powerful sovereign for absolute security, Locke advocated for a limited government focused on protecting individual rights. Rousseau emphasized the collective good and envisioned a more participatory form of government, even at the cost of restricting individual liberties. Understanding these diverse perspectives is crucial for appreciating the ongoing debates surrounding the role and limitations of political authority in society.