Abstract

B a c k g r o u n d. In the history of philosophy, views on the connection between Locke's Second Treatise and Hobbes' Leviathan have changed dramatically. Recent archival findings indicate that between 1658 and 1667, he [Locke] "almost always had Hobbes's Leviathan on his table, and recommended his friends read it." This provides stronger grounds to assert that Locke's Second Treatise is a response to Hobbes's thought experiment reconstructing the probable natural (pre-political) state of humankind. M e t h o d s. A comparative analysis of argumentation and key concepts of Hobbes ("Leviathan") and Locke ("Second Treatise") has been conducted in this study, examining their approaches to the thought experiment concerning the natural (pre-political) state of humanity. R e s u l t s. While agreeing on the dangers of the state of nature and the necessity of political organization for society, Hobbes and Locke diverge in their conclusions regarding the optimal institutional-normative model for such organization. The key divergence between their projects (Hobbes's absolutism versus Locke's limited government) stems from the different status assigned to equality: purely descriptive for Hobbes and normative for Locke. Absolutism creates inequality incompatible with Locke's normative approach. Locke's proposal to establish the rule of law and a set of accompanying guarantees to ensure equality between those vested with power and their subjects became the starting point for the concept of human rights as a normative limitation on power. C o n c l u s i o n s. 1) John Locke, in his reasoning within the Second Treatise, reexamines Thomas Hobbes's thought experiment concerning the natural (pre-political) state of society. Despite some clarifications and minor discrepancies in describing the pre-political state, Locke reaches the same conclusion as Hobbes: the natural state of society is "full of Fears and continual Dangers,"and contains constant conflicts that, in such a state, are fundamentally impossible to cease or resolve. Both philosophers draw the practical conclusion about the desirability of avoiding the threats of the state of nature and the necessity of creating political institutions to address this task. The fundamental difference between Locke's and Hobbes's positions lies in how they envision the political organization of society meant to solve the problem of the state of nature: for Hobbes, it should be an absolute monarchy; for Locke, the rule of law. 2) A key element in the reasoning of both philosophers is their view on human equality: for Hobbes, considerations of equality are purely descriptive, whereas Locke also assigns equality a normative status. The normative status of human equality makes organizing society in the form of an absolute monarchy, as Hobbes proposed, unacceptable: vesting power in any single person leads to inequality. Instead, Locke proposes to compensate for such inequality by limiting power through law, guaranteeing the inviolability of certain individual freedoms, and the right to rebellion in case of encroachment upon these freedoms. 3) Locke's normative-institutional project should be considered the beginning of the liberal discourse of human rights. Based on Locke's reasoning, we can define human rights as a normative system that defines the relationship between governing institutions on one side and individuals on the other, limiting or obligating the power holders.