When John Locke wrote his Second Treatises: Of Civil Government and Thomas Hobbes wrote The Leviathan, intellects were still trying to unpack everything the sovereign individual idea had to offer. It was generally accepted by both Locke and Hobbes that all men were equal (Even though "man" was a pretty exclusive group, but it was more progress than ever before), but they were equal in different ways.
John Locke
Locke believed that men were all equally good and needed very little authority to govern them. According to Man's "State of Nature," no one has power over another and all are equally free to do as they please so long as they don't infringe on other's freedom. Locke had a relatively optimistic outlook on human nature.
Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes, on the other hand, thought that man needed a parent authority to create "good laws" that he could abide by. He determined that because people were continually in competition for honor and dignity, they tended toward envy and hatred. Hobbes also generally believed that people were equal despite their differences because no matter how weak, the "weak" person could still use strategy to have a "strong" person killed.
The Hybrid
Over the weekend I attended a lecture by a well-known psychology professor from the University of Toronto. He analyzed the line from the declaration of independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." We know that all men are not "created equal" socially or economically, and the founding fathers who owned slaves obviously didn't think so. So what did they mean?
At the lecture, Dr. Peterson said that the self-evident truth is not that all people have equal opportunity when they come into the world, but that they all have equal capacity for good and evil. This could be thought of as a hybrid of the thoughts of Hobbes and Locke. He explained because all people have equal capacity for good and evil, they have an equal responsibility to the collective not to pursue evil and to seek out good. Because the state is made up of sovereign individuals in a free society, whether or not the state is inherently good depends on the individual.
My sister and I had a conversation last night that went along with this very well. My sister said that in her ponderings, she has concluded that in order for God to be 100% good, he must also KNOW how to be 100% evil. Although he has the capacity to do evil, he chooses to be 100% good. This coincides with scripture which states that if God were to do evil then he would cease to be God. We are meant to come to Earth to become like God, so we must also learn how to overpower those urges to do evil and choose to be good 100% of the time (which is not possible right now, but we can try to do better!).
ReplyDeleteI love that thought! I never thought of God in that sense!
DeleteI think this is an accurate interpretation. I think the problem lies in deciding what's good and what's bad. There are obvious things like murder or stealing that are bad, but when it comes to governing a nation, it is almost impossible for the competing parties to agree on what should be considered "good" and what should be considered "bad."
ReplyDeleteFirst Sterling, I always love your blog posts, second, I think when the founding fathers said that all men were created equal they were talking about it from God's perspective, not through our limited lens. I think its similar to the scripture that says "the worth of souls is great". I feel like back in those days they embraced the presence of God in government and saying something like that with a religious background is what makes the most sense to me.
ReplyDeleteThanks Lily!
Delete