1-Introduction
2-The
State of Nature
3-Transition
to the State: The Social Contract
4-The
New Order
5-Conclusions
6-Personal
view
7-Bibliography
1-Introduction
The
question about if it is really necessary to obey the rules that the State make
is a discussed topic in the last centuries. Furthermore, some thinkers believe
that the State shouldn’t exist. But first of all, what do we understand about the
State? Depending on the definition of any concept, it can lead to confusions,
so in this essay we well understand the State as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
did. Both of these authors thought that this institution was needed by the
people as we will see later. Therefore, these two thinkers agree with the idea
that we should obey the State.
Another
issue that will help us to understand why we should obey the State, based on
the theories of Hobbes and Locke, is the related with the State of Nature. We
can say that the State of Nature is the situation that existed before the
existence of the States and the governments (but not in an historical view,
more like based on ideas). So if we know how the human life before the
governments was, maybe, we will realize that it’s better to have a State and to
obey it.
The
transition of the State of Nature to the civil society can be explained, in
Hobbes and Locke’s thought, by the creation of a social contract. This contract
is a pillar in both authors, so we will define it and we will discover some
relations between this pact and the proper obedience to the State.
However,
this step to a civil organization is subjected to a restriction of rights. Is
it worth? According to Locke and Hobbes, we can affirm that. We will see which
rights the people lose and which rights we conserve.
Finally, I will make a conclusion answering
why we should obey the State based on these two worked thinkers and then I will
give my point of view about this using my acknowledge about this topic and personal
experiences.
2-The
State of Nature
Before
we enter in this “world”, we have to talk a little more about it. Some authors
consider that the State of Nature is the hypothetical condition in which men
would live if there wasn’t a common power capable of intimidating everyone of
them (Macpherson, 1979: 28). However,
some people insists that this State of Nature really existed as Martin Van
Creveld claimed “ Of both Hobbes and Locke, it was turned into proof that the
State of Nature was not merely a fiction but existed in reality”(Van Creveld, 1999: 188). According
to both thoughts and Hobbes and Locke’s theories, I will define the State of
Nature as a theoretical view of what would happen if the government doesn’t
exist. But I don’t overlook the fact that this situation based on ideas is
strictly connected with the lives and contexts of Hobbes and Locke. So at this
point we settle the conflict about if the State of Nature is an historical or
hypothetical view.
As
we are going to see, Locke and Hobbes understood in a different way this State
of Nature, so let’s explain everyone apart, but not excluding some comparisons
at the same time.
If
we follow an historical line, we firstly find Thomas Hobbes. To understand this
State of Nature it’s useful to know that Hobbes saw the man as basically evil (Van Creveld, 1999: 180). Then we can
say that the problem of this State of Nature is that “each individual has the
right to do whatever he thinks fit for the sake of his own self-preservation
and there is no order in place that can determine authoritatively what is right
and wrong” (Dyzenhaus, 2002: 174). Moreover,
everybody has the right to everything, even the life of the others. Then, if
everyone did whatever they want and there wasn’t a common power, we could say
that they would live in a condition of continual war of all against all. Hobbes
understood the war as a miserable condition due to the continual fear of death
and the inexistence of any positive attraction to life to human (Sullivan, 2004: 83-84-88). So
considering all this facts, we can say as Macpherson did, that the picture of
the State of Nature for Hobbes is the denial of the civilized society (Macpherson, 1979: 32). So, who
would like to live in such context?
The
State of Nature for Locke is quite different. According to Locke, the natural
right rules in the State of Nature. This Right isn’t the violence or the
coercion, but it is the natural law that says that men have incontrollable
freedom of doing whatever they want with his properties and themselves.
However, these men don’t have the freedom to injury themselves or others
(including other people’s property). In this natural law, the rationality
rules, and it teaches that people mustn’t attempt against the life, health,
liberty or property (Bermudo, 1997: 242). This
rationality encourages the people to the self-interests which would enable the
humanity to live in peace with each other, even in the State of Nature where
there is no common ruler (Van Creveld, 1999: 180). In fact, it
seems that we are in front of a peaceful State of Nature, the opposite of the
theory of Thomas Hobbes. Nonetheless, not everything is perfect as we can
imagine. There are some people that don’t follow the reason and then they
create conflicts. These conflicts are solved by the person injured, and that is
the main focus of problems in Locke’s State of Nature. Where doesn’t exist an
authority that decide between a conflict, the minor difference can cause the
start of a state of war between individuals (Macpherson, 1979: 205-206). So we can
understand that this State of Nature isn’t so good at all, and a neutral power
able to mediate and punish is necessary.
3-Transition
to the State: The Social Contract
Related
to the previous point, the State of Nature isn’t satisfactory for the humans.
Then, we can affirm that a government is needed. But, how do the people leave
the State of Nature to enter into a “State of civil society”? Both authors
express this idea through the concept of the social contract. But what is this
social contract?.
When
every individual decides to give their strengths and will to another people,
and this fact makes a united body with a single will. This can be considered an
artificial person with own will to rule, make laws, conquer and pact (Bermudo, 1997: 238). Then, we
call social contract to this decision of people to give their powers to an
institution and obey it in exchange of some benefits.
Hobbes
described a contract as the mutual transference of rights among men in
conditions of mutual consent (Hobbes, 1651). As Hobbes
saw on contracts a direct form to take individuals out of a very unpleasant
State of Nature (Vincent, 1987: 108), we can say
that social contract is the train that connect the State of Nature with the
civil society. Consequently, the social contract is a tool used to avoid the
terrible situation of the State of Nature, which gives people powers to an
absolute sovereign capable of protect anyone from everything (Macpherson, 1979: 29).
As
Hobbes, the State is explained by Locke as an artificial entity, which is born
thanks to the contract or agreement among men in the State of Nature (Ross, 2003: 169). The exactly
Locke’s description about that is the following: “So those who out of a state
of nature unite into a community must be understood to give up all the power
required to secure its purposes to the majority of the community (unless they
explicitly agree on some number greater than the majority). They achieve this
simply by agreeing to unite into one political society that’s all the compact
that is needed between the individuals that create or join a commonwealth.
Thus, what begins a political society and keeps it in existence is nothing but
the consent of any number of free men capable of a majority to unite and
incorporate into such a society. This is the only thing that did or could give
a beginning to any lawful government in the world” (Locke, 1689: Chapter 8).
Then,
we can say in conclusion that both authors accept the tradition of social
contract theory, understood as the creation of social and political
organization as the outcome of an agreement between individuals who see that
they will be better off under law than they would be in the State of Nature(Swift, 2007: 27-28).
4-The
New Order
I’ve
decided to name this section in this way because after the social contract we
enter in a new style of organization, a new regime, a new and different order.
As we have said, the Social Contract transports the individuals to a society
where they have not any more the same rights as before. However, that doesn’t
mean that it is dissatisfactory.
In
Hobbes’ new world, a new relation begins: the mutual relation between subject
and sovereignty about obedience and protection(Dyzenhaus, 2002: 172). But this
protection has a relative high cost; this commonwealth can be created when
individual transfer to an absolute sovereign their right to everything (Sullivan, 2004:85).
Nevertheless, Hobbes argued that in this created sovereign the people can
satisfy their end, the preservation of their lives (Sullivan, 2004: 105). Related
with this last two points it is relevant the next affirmation: “The choice of
the sovereign was irrevocable and liberty merely consisted of the cracks left
between the laws which tat sovereign enacted” (Van Creveld, 1999: 189). Then, we
can declare than in this transition to the New Order, the individual loses all
his rights to gain security and protection, enough if before that every life
was in danger and human life was just the opposite of comfortable.
As
reported by Locke, the change to the New Order also implies some losses, at the
same time that some rights are preserved. If we talk about losses, the right
that existed in the State of Nature of punishment when someone interferes
without permission into your property isn’t in hands of the people anymore,
because it’s given to the government. We can’t say that it’s is bad because the
government will act as a neutral judge avoiding conflicts. Another topic is the
freedom, which is now limited in order to subordinate the individual to the
society’s rules. Furthermore, the right of equality is lost too, with the
objective of beneficiate the society in general. The main right that people
conserves is the property, an absolutely important subject in Locke’s theories
which is strictly protected in the New Order. The right to the life is also
assured (Locke, 1689).
We
can conclude saying that Locke and Hobbes understood that the government rests
on the consent of those who seek to alleviate the difficulties of the pre-political
condition by entering into society. So the government is constructed for the
express purpose of providing security (Sullivan, 2004:202). Then we can
understand that as the government is created by us to satisfy our needs, even
if we lose some rights, why we shouldn’t obey it?
5-Conclusions
At
this point, we can settle some answers at the main question (Why should we obey
the State) related with all that we have explained before.
According
to Hobbes, the very purpose of government is to reduce- if not to eradicate-
the threat of war, to overcome war and avoid the situation of continual danger
and threat that existed in the State of Nature (Sullivan, 2004:83).Then, if we
make the social contract and obey the State, it can guarantee us security and
protection for ourselves. Therefore, even if we lose some rights, it’s better
to have and obey to a government than nothing, because we would be better than
in a horrible State of Nature (Van Creveld, 1999: 180). Another
point is that the State gathers the different wills into a single one and all
the judgments into a single judgment too, obeying the State we will avert some conflicts
(Ross, 2003: 102).
Related
with Locke, Andrew Vincent said that in Lockean tradition the government was
set up with the express purpose of maintaining such rights as life, liberty and
property (Vincent, 1987: 106). Hence, we
need a government to assure some rights, and to enable it we must be part of
the social contract obey the rules that the State makes. If we agree the social
contract, the State will be able to defend the property and punish crimes
because the political society has a common judge (Bermudo, 1997: 243). Finally, we
can understand that the property is not totally assured in the State of Nature,
so we will need a government to achieve that, so only obeying the State we will
be able to have secure property.
6-Personal
view
I
think, in a Hobbesian perspective, that the man is a wolf to his fellow man so
if we hadn’t government it will be a chaos where everyone would try to be more
powerful than the others at any cost. However, the existence of a government
promotes a peaceful situation and cooperation between people. Then, if we don’t
obey the State, we will enter into a continual conflict of each one against the
other.
Related
with the paper of the State, we can say other interesting things. Through the
social contract, we create a power that is capable to allow their citizens to
have a good life to a certain extent. So if we obey the State, we “obtain
rewards” for it like rights, which are a lot of nowadays in the Democratic
Social States.
Moreover, if there is a general obedience in the society toward the State, some organizations can be created that in the State of Nature couldn't, organizations related with all topics: social, economical, cultuarl, etc. I think that in a State of Nature no organization goes on for a long time; furthermore, any type or organization/cooperation has low possibilities to exist.
As
a conclusion, we must comment that a common power is needed to make possible a
relatively good human life. However, this power should be used to manage the
people instead of controlling them. And finally, we can’t forget that the
government exists only because we want, so we must obey it in order to don’t
contradict ourselves.
7-Bibliography
Bermudo, J. M. (1997). Filosofia Política (pp. 238–242–243). Barcelona: Edicions Universitat de
Barcelona - Marcial Pons.
Dyzenhaus, D. (2002). Leviathan in the 1930’s: The Reception of Hobbes in
the Third Reich. In J. P. McCormick (Ed.), Confronting mass democracy and
industrial technology: Political ans Social Theory from Nietsche to Habermas
(pp. 172–174). Durham: Duke University press.
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan.
Locke, J. (1689). Second Treatise of Government (p. Chapter8).
Macpherson, C. B. (1979). La teoría
política del individualismo posesivo: De Hobbes a Locke (1979th ed., pp.
28–29–32–205–206). Barcelona: Editorial Fontanella.
Ross, H. (2003). Hobbes, Locke and Confusion’s of Masterpiece. (pp.
102–169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sullivan, V. B. (2004). Machiavelli, Hobbes, & the Formation of a
Liberal Republicanism in England (pp. 83–84–85–88–202). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Swift, A. (2007). Political Philosophy: A Begginers’ Guide for Students
and Politicians (Second., pp. 27–28). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Van Creveld, M. (1999). The Rise and Decline of the State (First.,
pp. 180–188–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vincent, A. (1987). Theories of the State (pp. 106–108). Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario