In Hobbes’ “Leviathan”, we spoke about how he viewed primal humans as being in a “state of war/nature. ” Although this was hypothetical, I do agree with it to be somewhat true. Back in a time of humans with no structure or agreement socially of norms or folkways, it probably made life confusing and unpredictable. I believe that in that particular state of nature, fearing death was probably equal to the need to kill/defend. It is hard for me to believe that at some point humans actually began to think with reason. If it is possible I feel reason only would come up through thought was fears such as death.
A thought shared expressing that death was not wanted, and was in some, more than other, instances wrong. And with that thought process, came commitment to the idea that there should be order. This was for, in the end, a better life for everyone. However, humans look after themselves. I feel Hobbes understands that humans look after themselves. But he also understands that beyond this selfishness there is sharing and conversation. He says, “… transferring of right… is nothing else but the security of a man’s person… and the means of… preserving life,” (93).
Here I think he is reflecting the notion of the individual approaching the idea of making surroundings not violent anymore. However, they want it to be not violent for their own lives. He then says, “And therefore, if a man by words… seem to despoyle himself of the end,… he is not to be understood as if he meant it,… but that he was ignorant of how such words and actions were to be interpreted,” (93-94). From this “transferring of right” Hobbes says men call it a contract. I had to look up the word “despoyle” which I found to be spelled “despoil” meaning: to dispossess or be stripped of possessions.
Knowing this, I figured he meant that if a man, in a way, fails to reach the main goal of the “contract”, and that it is not that they do not want to have an understanding, but that they simply cannot understand the fundamental meaning of making sacrifices and working together under one ruler. He also said it was impossible to have a covenant between you and a “beast,” (97). These, I am assuming, are the savage people, or people foreign to the group completing the contract. And this covenant was important, because Hobbes felt not preforming the covenant was injustice.
I was not clear as to why. He broke down somewhat why in definitions he stated previously, but I started to interpret it as if he was saying an individual would have to agree to the covenant and follow the steps of transferring the right to be just, and after that there is no going back. And those who never did this, those that failed and “despoyled/despoiled” themselves, were unjust altogether. I just believe that at some point there should be fairness, especially when criticizing humans in a transition such as being in a raw state to a more well established confab of ideas.
Why? Well, even though sacrifices are made, and some of those sacrifices can be letting go of those who will not understand or confine to the more accepted idea of how to be just and live life, does not mean that anyone should not accept those people for who they are or what they are possibly capable of in the ideal society. As for breaking the covenant, I feel it gets broken more often than not, and it most likely will not end just because someone went against it. According to Locke, the difference between a state of war and state of nature is more so when they are finished.
To him they are two different things. And he feels that the reason people enter a societal state is to obviate a state of war. I feel, compared to Hobbes, Locke is more realistic. I say this because he expresses that we as a society fight and argue no matter what stage we are in, but how we cease the fighting in the different mindsets has a separation because state of war stops with the last violent thing being done and then there is conversation of making peace, but in a state of nature, it will go on and on until someone stands forward for the peace.
I think in today’s society, we fight and change when the last blow is struck each instance. In a way, humans become more trifling when they are engaged in a brawl. This is only because people cannot always compromise with their words, and supposedly the “covenant” is broken in more ways than one in the same instance between foes. It is hard to distinguish property nowadays. Locke believes in the property of the world for every human being, and the property of the body to oneself. Whatever is done with that body belongs to that body.
But that transfers over to what that body experiences, and what it touches, and when. So, I do believe that there are facts to what is what, and what belongs to who based on simple question of what is done with each body. He says at the very end of chapter five in the second treaty, “… what portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen; and it was useless as well as dishonest to carve himself too much… ” (302). The words useless and dishonest stood out for me, because if it is so useless, then why do people continue to carve more for themselves in more instances than one?
And if it is to be dishonest, who is it hurting personally if one takes more for themselves? Those who have less? There is a class system. The proletariat relinquishes what they have to become a part of a class, and a mindset for the better. The savage homo-sapien relinquishes their violent way for a mindset of peace. This being said, there are those who give up, and those who are left to take what is given up. Locke believed in a system, and in that system there are going to be those who make things happen, and those who benefit from those things happening.
If you make things happen then you are more likely to receive the benefits from it. Most who put in the work are better off in the long run, than those who do not contribute to the cause. I feel it is only dishonest if the gaining of more is done by stealing it from someone else. There is an understanding for one person to preserves themselves, while another does the same, but this understanding becomes blurred when we want the same things, or strive for the same purposes. One cannot have all, and that simple challenge causes strife between humans who want more than they need in the first place.