Hobbes argues that political order comes about only when there is a sufficient, all-powerful, sovereign (Leviathan) to impose that order. Locke, by contrast, holds that both society and moral law exist prior to the state (and hence, there is a good bit of 'natural' social order), with the state merely being a way to overcome certain inconveniences of a pre-political situation.
Think about the 'Arab Spring' (a summary of events can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring). Do the significant changes that have occurred over the past several years tend to provide support to a Hobbesian view, a Lockean view, or do different aspects of events lend credence to both? Give examples and explain why.
The trouble in the Arab nations for the past few years due to political unrest most closely resembles Hobbes’ view. In a brief summary, Hobbes argues that the natural state of a nation is violence and that this is due to people’s desire to protect themselves, their property, and freedom. If a man feels that another man is a threat to his desires then he will be more than willing to fight for what he believes. So argues Hobbes, that a nation should have a leader that represents everyones ideas and has the power to do anything in order to protect his people. Because the leader is to be a sum of all the people’s beliefs, then there can be no injustice done by him because it would be injustice done by the people upon themselves since he represent all that they believe in. With this in mind such a nation can throw any hopes of liberty and freedom out the window because they are only imaginary terms as the all powerful leader has no limit as opposed to Locke’s theory on political leaders.
ReplyDeleteWhat we see in Arab nations is a result of many years of “sheep-like” thinking by the people. Most of these nations, although hard to imagine, had a good degree of liberty and freedom, before their people chose dictators that eventually shut all the doors of freedom closed. This is impressive on the dictator’s part as it took many years of lying and brainwashing everyone using religious and anti-Western motives; making use of psychological weakness of the human mind through uniting them in something they don’t believe in by creating a “common enemy” that is not of anymore threat than their neighbors. The most recent and popular overthrowing of Gaddafi and Mubarak’s regimes showed that these people have finally waken up and realized that their nation’s leader’s are not interested in protecting the people but rather their own power and beliefs. Not a part of the Arab spring, but the changing of regime in Iran into an Islamic based one also shows why these countries are at the place they are in now; their citizens don’t do anything opposing dictator-minded leaders until it is too late. This relates to Hobbes theory in that the Arab nations led by dictators are realizing, similar to Hobbes theory, that their leader is not portraying them but rather his own beliefs, which is the only way for injustice in a nation led by an “all-powerful” leader. Then seeing of this injustice, the countries turn into a state of violence because there is no one to protect people rights without abusing them.This violence will continue until a leader proposed in Locke’s theory with limit to his power’s yet representing the people as suggested by Hobbes is found.
I believe the significant changes due to the Arab Spring in recent years tend to support the Lockean view rather than the Hobbesian view, because of the revolutions and political demonstrations against the oppressive sovereign rule, which imposes their authority and rule on the lower classes. This oppression invigorates a response from the masses who have a sense of moral right and moral wrong that supersedes any political structure. So that when a political situation is set up that causes injustice there is a natural reaction that is stimulated by the morality of the citizenship so that they pursue state that is founded on a natural social order and revolt against an inequality within the social and political structure. I believe that because there was an imposed political structure for such a long time that the new younger generation in the Arab world feels a sense of injustice within the system that has been the political structure for so long, and that the given the chance to demonstrate and correct the improper moral standing they seize that opportunity in an attempt to set up a more democratic state.
ReplyDeleteThe significant changes that have occurred over the last few years in terms of the "Arab Spring", in my opinion, relate more to Locke's view on social and political philosophy. Hobbes has a view that focuses on the power of the authority and law. He believes that there are stronger men than others. "For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself" (141). While Locke's philosophical view focuses on the state of nature and how each man is viewed as equal. Locke discusses how men were put on the earth equally and should be equal to sovereign rule as in having human rights and the right to stand up. He agrees with the right to riot. He believes that if a government is acting unjustly then it should be replaced by the people for a new government. This goes along with the "Arab Spring" because the people overthrew many governments and were rioting against them violently and non violently. Although Hobbes' view goes along with it in terms of having a more powerful sovereignty to prevent destruction from the people and to protect, Locke's view is more closely related to it the destruction caused by Arab Springs. Locke states, " Every man being, as has been shown, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any earthly power but only his own consent, it is to be considered what shall be understood to be sufficient declaration of a man's consent to make him subject to the laws of any government" (182). Locke believes people have natural freedom to express their rights. In the "Arab Spring" case, it relates to Locke's view because he believed it was appropriate to do what the people did such as over throw the government and many powers when they believe it is being unjust. Hobbes' view is shown here because the authority should be more powerful in that they should not be overthrown and should protect the people. In this instance Locke's view is more related, but in terms of having a powerful sovereign, Hobbes can be related as well.
ReplyDeleteI think the changes in the Arab Spring have different aspects from both Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes states that a ruler should have power to do anything that he wants to protect his people from the initial state of violence that will take over if there is not order. This can be see from the Arab Spring because of the revolution that is went on in the Arab world. Hobbes believes that as a ruler, he can do as he pleases to regain control and that it will end the violence if he has control of the people since they will quit the violence.
ReplyDeleteLocke argues a counter perspective that initially people are happy. As these people see things going on that they believe to be morally wrong by the dictator they begin to oppose the government and riot. He believes that since all people are created as equal that when something goes unjust that the people have the right to revolt and to set up a new government that is more to there liking and fair.
The events of the Arab Spring are a twisted web of both the Hobbesian and Lockean ideas. We are really just now seeing the fallout from these events. I have heard the term “Arab Winter” to describe what we are now seeing unravel in the Middle East. In a way, the Arab Spring was a reaction to a strongly Hobbesian view of government in the effected countries in the Middle East. We see this because those countries, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, and Egypt all had one major thing in common: strong, authoritarian, dictator regimes (which fall in line with a Hobbesian ideology). The revolutions which started in Tunisia happened because the people were generally tired of their long time dictators so they began to push for Lockean reforms. They wanted to reform the social contract, to provide a more democratic form of government; much how Locke is a foundational base of our own government system.
ReplyDeleteThe results we are seeing so far have been mixed. Tunisia is probably the best example of how the Lockean reform can work, but other countries like Syria are having massive issues now that the imposed Hobbesian order has been taken away. As a matter of fact, ISIS has largely been able to rise up because of the power vacuum created from the loss of Hobbesian order. This has called into question the practicality of Lockean views in the Middle East, some analysts have concluded that the Middle East needs Hobbesian order to function and the loss of that order has contributed to the problem; even starting as far back as removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. It is hard to tell yet (still too early) which view point is best for the Middle East. That region has had a long history of a Hobbesian authority, even back to the Caliphate of the Middle Ages and we have yet to see the course which groups like ISIS will take the Middle East. The people have seemed to want Lockean reform, we will see if it can prevail.
Hobbes wrote in Leviathan that humans needed to be restrained by government in order to stop their naturally selfish ways. Although their success could mean the loss of another, people will act in their own interest. John Locke was a modern liberalist who believed that human nature was characterized by reason, not objects. In the case of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak ruled for almost 20 years under martial law and was a relentless dictator in that time. Hobbes would approve of this idea of a single supreme leader. This, along with some of the other events of the Arab Spring, would make it appear that world leaders prefer Hobbes’ theory.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Arab spring and the change that have occurred as a result are more closely related to the Hobbesian view. The Hobbesian view indicates an all-powerful government which was present at the start of the Arab spring leading the citizens to be oppressed and rise up against the ruling bodies. The over through and resignation of these leaders who have been risen up against are beginning to be replaced by revolters who are likely to maintain the all powerful rule that was previously in place just with different focuses. I view these changes as a result of the Arab Spring as more of a Hobbesian view than a Lockian one as the government and the revolts seem to be based on absolute power rather than moral or ethical principles.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Arab Spring can in a way intertwine into both Hobbesian and Lockean views, but it is leaning more towards a Hobbesian view. The view of a Hobbesian implies a government that has an unconditional, dominant presence through acts of violence and cruelty to get what they want. Through the revolution of the Arab spring, this supports a Hobbesian view. A case to back up a Lockean view, with the people of society voicing their opinions by riots and making their voice heard due to immoral acts by the government, there have been budges in their structure for the lower classes in society. Since the Arab spring is ultimately based on pure power with hardly any recognition of the morality of their doings, this leads more to a Hobbesian view of ethics.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the changes that have occurred due to Arab Spring support the Lockean view rather than the view of Hobbes. Arab Spring was an uprising against the Intifadas which by Hobbes views would be considered a Leviathan because they were all powerful and controlled all the decision and were oppressive to the people that they ruled. Arab Spring is an example that proves that Hobbes viewed is flawed. When society is oppressed there is almost always a revolt in order to strive for equality and justice. Therefore as Lockean view suggest moral and ethical principal will overcome inconveniences of a political situations. These uprisings are an attempt to regain the natural social order that Locke writes about.
ReplyDeleteAs I personally believe in more of an Existentialist way of thinking over a Hobbesian or Lockean way of thinking I personally do not believe either theory is completely correct.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, in terms of the Arab Spring, I would argue that the principles put forth by Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan and the principles put forth by John Locke in his book The Second Treatise on Civil Government (at least the portions we read in our textbook) are both seen in the Arab Spring. More specifically, the principles put forth by Hobbes are seen in the authorities as they clearly believe man is driven simply by his wants and desires and the only way to control him is by orienting society toward what Hobbes calls summum malum or fear of violence. Going along with that idea, the authorities in many Arab countries meet government dissidence with harsh measures. For example, in Syria authorities tried to scare away demonstrators by threatening (and eventually using) chlorine gas. Also they seem to take to heart, at least to an extent, Hobbes idea that a monarchy is the best form of government as many Arab countries are controlled by rulers who hand pick who succeeds them. A prime example of this can be seen in Qatar where the government is controlled by Emirs (which is similar to a king). By the same token the principles put forth by Locke are seen in the demonstrators as they clearly believe that government is there to serve man and not the other way around. They also clearly hold the Lockean view point that the government of their fathers is not necessarily the best government for them and that if government is no longer functioning for the people that it must be replaced which can be seen in numerous instances during the Arab Spring, probably most notably in Egypt who's government has been overthrown twice over the course of the last decade. Another Lockean view point being shown by the demonstrators is the idea of property or, in other words, that each person owns the fruits of their labor. This can be seen in numerous Arab countries where the idea is being pushed by demonstrators, for example in the country of Bahrain where the sentiment is that the government controls too much of the wealth. In conclusion, both Hobbesian and Lockean view points can be seen in the Arab Spring. However, the Hobbesian view point is more being espoused by the authorities and the Lockean view is more being espoused by the demonstrators.
I believe that the "Arab Spring" relate more to Locke's view on social and political philosophy rather than Hobbes' view, but they can all also be very similar. Locke talks about how we all should be viewed as equal and we all have the same rights when it comes to governing and other things. He believes that the government should be for the people and not against, and if so then it needs to be replaced with someone that will better the people and their lives rather than just focusing on themselves. This goes along with "Arab Spring" because the people overthrew multiple governments due to not better their lives. Now the Hobbesian view demonstrates rule against the people of a lower social economic status and they are not concerned with their way of living or what they think. So overall, Locke relates to "Arab Springs because they were for the people and thought it was okay for the government to over throw the government if it is not acting appropriately. The Hobbes' view should not be over thrown and they should protect their land and their people, so in a way, they both can relate.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Arab spring most resembles Hobbes viewpoint other than Lockes. This situation is the result of an all-powerful government being overthrown by its citizens which have been oppressed. This oppression got to a breaking point to where the citizens had enough and took it into their own hands to do something about it. As the uprising goes on leaders of the old regime will be taken out and replaced by able members of the revolt to implement order and peace. These new leaders will focus on the key issues that the previous government failed to touch on. This situation of an oppressive all-powerful government and the unfortunate citizens having to rise up and make things right closely relates to Hobbe's view as opposed to Locke's.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Arab Springs was a domino effect of uprisings against the dictatorial leaders throughout the Arab world. Thousands of people lost their lives to try to change the government and it is still going on today. I beleive that the Arab Springs reflects Lockes viewpoint rather than Hobbes because Locke says that all men are to be equal. However, during these springs there was a lot of poverty, censorship, and a lot of property being lost. Men were being overpowered and they didnt like it, so taking on lockes views they had to stand up for themselves against the oppression, especially the lower class. There was no equality within the political structure and in order for men to trust and follow the government they feel as if equality is the foundation. Rather than hobbes view of where the govenrment must make the people fear them which will keep a functioning society. The people didn't like to be feared so they revolted to try to save themselves in return.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the Arab Springs represents Hobbes point of view the most. Hobbes believes that a civilization would be better off with a strict government and a supreme leader. He believes this to stop the humans naturally selfish ways. Locke has a view point that everyone is equal and laws should be made by reason. With these two points I would say Arab Springs follows Hobbes
ReplyDeleteThe changes that led up to the revolution has leaned more towards a Lockean view. When you compare the two philosophers; Hobbes view is more geared toward power and authority of the law. Hobbes gives the idea that governing bodies to control a society are very important and should be obeyed too because we gave them full authority over ourselves. Locke has a view that focuses on the natural state and views humans as an equal being to the next. He thinks we put government in place as a mild gesture to keep people in check but that we naturally know what is right and what is wrong. Locke discusses how people in a society have human rights, or natural rights and when a governing body is not acting in the best interest of the body it is governing then it is time for a time. This goes along with the “Arab Spring” in the fact that the people were being unjustly treated so they came together rioting and overthrew governments.
ReplyDeleteAs a revolutionary wave of protests and uprisings, Arab Spring has demonstrated a strong fight against oppressive ruling. With regards to social and political philosophy, I see changes in this situation to be more related to a Lockean view. Locke's view is that all people are equal and the government should lead with the thought of its people's livelihood in mind. Hobbes believe in more of forceful rule and keeping power at all costs. What these people are doing is taking the power away from their government. They are standing up for their human right, as Locke would say.
ReplyDelete