Hobbes Vs. Locke

In his theory, Hobbs believed we decide on where to draw lines between good and evil, right and wrong according to our desires, when we don’t have a commonwealth, and in commonwealth, by following sovereign’s judgment. He also said that by living in a constant motion, we “can never be without desire, nor without fear, no more without sense” (p.35). Consequently, since we agree on creating a sovereign out of fear, we cannot make a reasonable decision about “prudence” or “deliberation” of the sovereign and as to whether we need a sovereign or not in the first place (p. 26, 33). Therefore, it is another reason why resolution of commonwealth is controvercial.

Hobbs draws inevitable laws of nature: to seek peace, preserve our lives and to “lay down this right to all things, and be contended with so much liberty against other men, as would allow other men against himself,” – justice (p.80). In order to maintain a state of peace we need some coercive power to control us, as Hobbs assures us. As I showed above, we are all competitive, and without a maintaining structure we would always remain in a brutal state of nature. Therefore, we need to be restrained from following our desires. By having a power over us we will develop a fear of punishment, and won’t break laws of nature. Here Hobbs shows significance of having a social contract, or establishing covenants, by mutually transferring our rights to each other. Yet, if the law of nature binds us to preserve our lives, then we initially have a fear not to break our covenants, since by doing so we will risk our lives and will go back to the state of nature. Hence, we develop a fear of �