The Age of Enlightenment (1650-1800), sometimes referred to as the Age of Reason, was characterized with new approaches to discipline that addressed objective truths primarily in relation to the human race and society (Withers, 2007, p.2). Key enlightenment thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have delineated the natural condition of mankind which they identify as “the state of nature” in their novels Leviathan and Second Treatise of Government respectively. By arguing that current social relations are unnatural, they emphasize the artificial characters of societies. Accordingly, this paper will draw upon the notion of the state of nature as delineated by Hobbes and Locke in their novels to support their contention that political obligation
…show more content…
While Hobbes concludes the natural state as one with irrational fear, Locke depicts a state of reason that enables individuals to acknowledge natural law administered by the supreme legislator, that is, divinity (Ibid, p.52). With adherence to natural laws such as seeking peace and preservation, the state of nature does not become a state of license that enables individuals to carry out anything they will. However, a temporary state of war may occur when an individual violates natural law but concludes with the punishment of the perpetrator (Mawhinney: Locke II, Feb 4). Accordingly, natural justice exists and is implemented by each individual. Likewise Hobbes, Locke depicts natural equality and freedom as retaining jurisdiction over oneself and acting through will governed by …show more content…
On one hand, Hobbes asserts that a strong common power must be established to which each individual submits. Therefore, he argues for a sovereign that has absolute jurisdiction over institutions and citizens to facilitate their actions and “keep them in such a motion as not to hurt themselves by their own impetuous desires” (Hobbes, 1994, p.229). The sovereign is organized as an office or a state where power is indivisible and perpetual. The sovereign is also not bound to the contract, allowing it to retain its natural rights and act independently with respect to the contract (O’Hara: Tutorial, Jan 7). Since the basis of sovereign authority is the will of all individuals, the sovereign should implement logical decisions to maintain civil peace. However, even if the sovereign acts tyrannical, Hobbes argues it is still preferable compared to the state of war; absolute power is required to prevent the condition of war (O’Hara: Tutorial, Jan 28). On the other hand, Locke advocates for a division of powers between an executive and a legislative body. Critiquing the Hobbesian sovereign, Locke argues that arbitrary power can lead to violence and oppression since the sovereign is not bound to the contract (O’Hara: Tutorial, Jan 21). Consequently, the state of nature becomes preferable than absolutism; Locke states it would be absurd if men “take care to avoid what mischiefs may be done
While Hobbes concludes the natural state as one with irrational fear, Locke depicts a state of reason that enables individuals to acknowledge natural law administered by the supreme legislator, that is, divinity (Ibid, p.52). With adherence to natural laws such as seeking peace and preservation, the state of nature does not become a state of license that enables individuals to carry out anything they will. However, a temporary state of war may occur when an individual violates natural law but concludes with the punishment of the perpetrator (Mawhinney: Locke II, Feb 4). Accordingly, natural justice exists and is implemented by each individual. Likewise Hobbes, Locke depicts natural equality and freedom as retaining jurisdiction over oneself and acting through will governed by …show more content…
On one hand, Hobbes asserts that a strong common power must be established to which each individual submits. Therefore, he argues for a sovereign that has absolute jurisdiction over institutions and citizens to facilitate their actions and “keep them in such a motion as not to hurt themselves by their own impetuous desires” (Hobbes, 1994, p.229). The sovereign is organized as an office or a state where power is indivisible and perpetual. The sovereign is also not bound to the contract, allowing it to retain its natural rights and act independently with respect to the contract (O’Hara: Tutorial, Jan 7). Since the basis of sovereign authority is the will of all individuals, the sovereign should implement logical decisions to maintain civil peace. However, even if the sovereign acts tyrannical, Hobbes argues it is still preferable compared to the state of war; absolute power is required to prevent the condition of war (O’Hara: Tutorial, Jan 28). On the other hand, Locke advocates for a division of powers between an executive and a legislative body. Critiquing the Hobbesian sovereign, Locke argues that arbitrary power can lead to violence and oppression since the sovereign is not bound to the contract (O’Hara: Tutorial, Jan 21). Consequently, the state of nature becomes preferable than absolutism; Locke states it would be absurd if men “take care to avoid what mischiefs may be done