In defense of Hobbes

After reading Hobbes I was surprised to find that a few members of the class considered Hobbes to be somewhat of a jerk. Hobbes’ dark understanding of commonwealth as well as his lack of emotion towards his fellow man brought many of us, including myself, to believe that Hobbes was just a mean old Englishman. This idea seemed to be cemented in our minds after reading the Lockian view of society. Locke’s state of nature connected to us more than Hobbes sovereign rule because we can relate to Locke’s views more easily. Locke’s ideas were much easier to swallow than Hobbes’ because Locke was merely improving on Hobbes original ideas. We have to remember that Hobbes was on the run when he wrote Leviathan in 1651; avoiding the English civil war and watching his own system of government, the one thing in his life that always appeared unwavering, crumble. Hobbes used Leviathan as a stage to originate social contract theory as we know it. Locke, on the other hand, wrote Two Treatises of Government in 1689: 38 years after Hobbes wrote his masterpiece. Locke simply repackaged Hobbes ideas and called them his own. For example, Hobbes wrote in “Of Commonwealth” on page 109, “The only way to erect such a common power as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry, and by the fruits of the earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon just one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will…” While many readers may be confused by Hobbes ideas concerning body politics, Locke clears this up for us, writing in “Of Commonwealth” on page 128, “… for it is not every compact that puts an end to the state of nature between men, but only this one of agreeing together mutually to enter into one community and make one body politic; other promises and compacts men may make one with another and yet still be in the state of nature.” Locke does  a very good job of calling many of Hobbes ideas his; so much so that modern readers initially believe that Hobbes is a foolish man. While he is certainly long winded, we must remember that Hobbes was somewhat of a pioneer in his field, and was living in paranoia. Calling Hobbes a bad person after reading Locke is like criticizing the writers of the constitution for not adding a clause concerning the use of automatic weapons for home defense. If anything, Locke is the bad guy here, not Hobbes.