Which Equality?

Initially, Locke and Hobbes appear to proceed from relatively similar starting assumptions—however, their subsequent conclusions and reasoning diverge greatly. Specifically, both Locke’s and Hobbes’ arguments stem from similar beliefs in the initial conditions of humanity. Although, both agree that it is a state of almost unmitigated freedom, where the absence of an external coercive power presupposes significant restrictions on one’s liberty.

Both thinkers seem to agree that a certain kind of equality exists in this state. However, the diverge as to origin and consequences of this equality. Locke argues that the state of nature is one of equality, “wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another” (Locke, 101). Likewise, Hobbes states that, “when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he” (Hobbes, 74). However, while both men point to the importance of a state of equality, Locke takes this perfect equality to be a consequence of the state of nature. Conversely, Hobbes argues it as a matter of preexisting fact. 

From these initial conditions, their arguments begin to sharply diverge. Hobbes argues that this, “equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends” (75). Seemingly, assuming a kind of competition between humans. He also argues that the fundamental imperative of humans is self-preservation, and that an individual has an overriding commitment to ensuring their own existence. He terms this the “Law of Nature.” (77). Thus, Hobbes’ assumptions have already created the premises for an argument of human society as decidedly hostile, anarchic, and oppressive.

On the other hand, Locke argues that state of perfect equality imposes a positive duty on individuals to, “[bear] to [others] ward fully the like affection: from which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves” (102). Thus, rather than setting the stage for zero-sum confrontations against one-another, Locke argues that this state of freedom, “is not a state of license” (102). The overriding principle guiding these actions is what Locke also terms the, law of nature which is reason, which commands that, “all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (102). Thus, our equality guarantees us equal standing with one another and the natural law of reason demands an equal respect of one another—a far different conclusion than Hobbes. This begs the question, whose account of equality is more or less correct and what are the corresponding implications for governing structures, many of which are premised on principles of equality. So, whose definition of 'equality' is correct? Whose definition of the 'law of nature' is correct?