In lecture last Wednesday (10/17), Prof. LaVaque-Manty
brought up the point that society today is in fact Hobbesian rather than
Lockean or Rousseauian. I don’t know if I agree with that, but it’s quite
interesting considering our Constitution is Lockean.
Hobbes believed that the state of nature is chaos. Man is
naturally selfish, so he will steal from and kill his neighbor when given the
opportunity. At the same time, however, the
“thief” needs to fear being killed himself. No man is more powerful than any
other so there’s no stopping it; there is essentially always war. Hobbes
believed man’s worst fear is a violent death, which occurs quite often in the
state of nature. This leads men into a social contract.
Under this contract, there is a ruler (sovereign) given absolute
power to prevent the return to the state of nature. He can tax, exile, or kill
whomever he wants and because the ruled are fearful of him, they give up their
rights (which includes right to steal, kill, etc.) and he gains legitimacy. As
said by Hobbes, “And covenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength
to secure a man at all.”
Locke heavily influenced the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence. Our country is founded upon his ideas of social
contract and government’s rights. Men enter into a contract to protect the most
threatened thing in nature – property. Under this contract, the government’s
responsibility is to protect property and ensure self-interest doesn’t violate
the codified laws.
Prof. LaVaque-Manty brought up a couple examples of how we
are under a Hobbesian model (i.e. airport society), but I’m not so sure I fully
agree with that. As for his airport society example, I wouldn’t say people fear
the security and give up their rights because of that, but rather people are
following the codified laws to ensure property (and lives) are protected.
I’d also like to genuinely believe that most people act freely
(maybe I’m naïve?), instead of in fear. When I pay for my groceries at CVS, I
do so because I hold the moral tenet that stealing is wrong (even if I could
get away with it scot-free), not because I fear the consequences of being
caught.
Why I’d also argue why society is Lockean is because one
person really isn’t provided with absolute power. Even the president has
checks-and-balances. The government doesn’t hold supreme power over us, but as
Christopher Khawand says, it provides “a framework for the protection of life,
liberty, and property.”
In conclusion, I think we live in a Lockean society. Our country
is built upon it and I’m not so sure we’re so selfish and fearful. What do you
all think? Are we in a Hobbesian or Lockean society (or perhaps even Rousseauian)?
Ryan, this is an interesting post because our society is definitely a combination of Locke and Hobbes. I like to think that our society is Lockean, but it would be overly optimistic to say that we do not see aspects of Hobbes' ideas within everyday life. Most people do not give full consent to the government that they are subjected to. Furthermore, the role of government has changed drastically from its original form under the Lockean constitution. Aspects of government such as Social Security make it seem as though the government believes people are not suited to handle their own fund. This is definitely a very thought provoking post.
ReplyDeleteBrendan,
DeleteI agree with you that society is mostly a combination of Locked and Hobbes. What interests me the most from what you said was that most people do not give their full consent to the government that they live under. Locke believed that the sole purpose of the government was to serve the people's best interest. If they failed to do then the people would have the right to dissolve their government. If most people do not give full consent do you think they have the right to disband their current governments?
I find it unsurprising that our society leans towards Lockean ideals. Considering the Founding Fathers held Locke and his conception of natural rights in high esteem, they wrote and established the natural rights afforded to Americans: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (rather than property). The lack of absolute power also alludes to the belief that people are the best judges of themselves and their situations.
ReplyDeleteYet this is not universal in our society, leading to some to believe that a large portion of our society is actually Hobbesian in nature. Most government committees and laws are prime examples that people are not the best judges. Government committees hold power over dictating the actions of people, liming actions deemed harmful to society. Certain laws do the same in place of common sense where common sense is lacking. Laws like school attendance laws are necessary as it has been shown by many cases of childhood delinquency that people (e.g. parents) are not the best judges.
There is a certain fear that society is becoming more Hobbesian, but is that warranted? Opinions?
I see a lot of Locke in modern society. It was through his concept of tabula rasa - the belief that we were all born with a 'blank slate' - that he determined we were all born as equal to each other. From this, he was able to form his concept of natural rights that he believed everyone possessed. He believed that nobody could invalidate these rights and humans could not surrender these rights even through a social or legal contract. His original conception of this is phrased as 'life, liberty and estate,' but in America it is commonly known as 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' And this is an example of just one thing Locke has brought to the table of America.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Locke has contributed immensely to modern American society, we take many of his ideas and principles for granted. In my classes that involve either law or philosophy, I constantly hear about 'inalienable rights.' I wonder who thought of those...