Hobbes posture
Introduction
Now it seems appropriate to involve the position of Hobbes, due to its absolutism and evil that he finds in the state, it seems pertinent to appear after Spinoza. Although, for Hobbes he is also considered an iusnaturalist thinker, since he speaks of natural law that we receive all people at birth, he finds evil in the state, this abstract entity that he calls the Leviathan.
Hobbes, as mentioned. In that sense, the social contract appears, which is explained as an unwritten contract between people within the community that leads them to behave and relate without affecting others;This perception is possible thanks to the instinct of survival of the human being, which thanks to the fear of death prefers to avoid the conflict to conserve itself as a species.
Developing
To understand Hobbes’s proposal and make the possible difference with Spinoza, it mustfear imposed, that is, he has the possibility of exercising physical violence who does not respect the pact.
Understanding Hobbes’s ideas is paying attention to the details that the author shows, on the one hand the author feels the foundations of his Leviathan after an English civil war that makes him reflect on the problems that society drags towards the conflict, but byAnother, this contract postulate between people is not directed towards a democracy, unlike Spinoza;is directed towards the monarchy. Hobbes is aware of the power of God and his creation of nature, and makes the comparison of men and their racing power that is what the State creates. And explain it in its first lines:
Nature (the art with which God has done and governs the world) is imitated in such a way, as in many other things, by the art of man, that this can create an artificial animal. Making a comparison, or distinction between what man, God and the State is. And that later it will explain how the conformation of the Leviathan is, this being an imitation of the creation that God makes in nature;Man creates the State through reasoning.
The state of nature of man, implies the ignorance of the concepts built within a society, and therefore, within a state. For example, notions of justice, inequality, good or bad, are institutionalized within the jurisdiction of a State, which is why, when talking about a state of nature, it is not possible to find these definitions, they are out of place. It is like judging that an animal attack or matte to a person, cannot be judged if he did well or badly, the animal is in its state of nature, and cannot be attacked of unfair or unfair, of acting well or badly. They pass in the state of nature of man, so that injustice exists, there must be a state with laws that are breached.
Now, this state of nature, as it has also been mentioned, implies a conflict: for Hobbes being in your natural right of survival, implies the possibility of executing and seeking your survival over others. The problem resides then, in reason and in the fact of giving human defense to a major entity, that is, when people create a union pact to live under a state built by themselves, they must give in the defense of their speciesTo a president, this case the king, who will be in charge of conserving and bringing peace between the conflict.
This notion is what the social contract refers to, it must be a union contract where we all reach the same agreement and the resignation of our passions. Within these natural laws that make up the State, Hobbes directs them towards a monarchy due to the conditions of violence he finds, but are not absolute. That is, it seems to me that Hobbes does a completely descriptive job, and therefore scientific, and if the conditions of violence had been different, the conclusion would be another.
Contraparte of John Locke’s liberalism
Against position, John Locke’s thought arises, who will glimpse the foundations of liberalism. I say against position because Locke’s thought goes hand in hand in certain aspects with hobbes, but takes another aspect that we will explain.
On the one hand, as already explained, Hobbes speaks of a natural state of man that is full of competition and conflict, but it is this same that makes necessary the creation of a state, which calls Leviathan. On the other hand Locke, he concludes that this state of nature inherently is already social.
For this, the author explains natural rights, which are universal because of their natural character, that is, every man has them. These natural rights are three: the right to life, the right to freedom and the right to property. The difference with Hobbes lies in the fact, apparently somewhat utopian, that men have reasoning and the ability to live together and carry out these natural rights without the need for an absolutist state, since an absolutism is not for LockeA way for the legitimation of a state.
Returning to the natural rights that Locke speaks of, we find the basis of why they cannot be violated. To begin with, the natural right to life, is governed by God, he is the one who gives life and the one who can take it, in that sense, no individual, according to Locke, has the license and power to deprive another of this, as with that of freedom. When Locke speaks of the property right, he clarifies that everyone has the right to own land, but only to the number of lands that are able to work them, that is, if only one hectare of the five he has can work,The other four are a surplus.
conclusion
By establishing these natural rights. Locke is implicitly talking that the natural state of man is already social from the beginning, so the contract that Hobbes speaks, the social contract, for Locke is a political contract, which must be established as a State, for the strength ofThose rights. Contrary to Hobbes, who believes that it must be a resignation by the subject to belong to the State and its jurisdiction. Now, although it speaks of natural rights, and this beautiful notion and without a conflict of the natural state, it is not quite so;Locke knows that man is, as explained in religion, a sinner and that the violation of these rights can be evident;Therefore, the author expresses the possibility of being judged and punished.
Leave feedback