More handpicked essays just for you.
Locke and Hobbes compare and contrast
Locke and Hobbes compare and contrast
Hobbes vs. locke comparison essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
One of the primary reasons both Locke and Hobbes form commonwealths is to punish violations of rights. Yet, each has different visions of what the ideal government looks like. These differences arise from their different views of punishment and the government’s authority. For Hobbes’ punishment “is an evil inflicted by public authority on him that hath done or omitted that which is judged by the same authority to be a transgression of the law, to the end that the will of men may thereby the better be disposed to obedience” (XXVIII.1),while for Locke politics is “a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defense of the common-wealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the publick good” (§3). Although both philosophers’ definitions of punishment are relatively similar, Locke sees punishment as inherent to government as opposed to Hobbes who thinks punishment is inevitable but not inherent. Also, punishment in Hobbes is inflicted by the sovereign though not inherent to him, while for Locke punishment is a right given to the community. It is this difference that leads to different ideal forms of governments.
For Hobbes, punishment is the act of public authority inflicting harm on a man when he breaks a law to create better dispositions of obedience to the laws. Although punishment occurs naturally in the state of nature, it is not natural to the commonwealth. Hobbes writes “no man is supposed bound by covenant not to resist violence; and consequently, it cannot be intended that he gave any right to another to lay violent hands upon his person” (XXVIII.2...
... middle of paper ...
...even goes so far as to say “absolute monarchy, which by some men is counted the only government in the world, is indeed inconsistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil government” (§90). For Locke, in the case of a monarch, man appeals to one man for the decision of fair punishment. It is the same as in the state of nature except the man being appealed to in not one’s self but an external earthly authority. In this way monarchy is the state of nature with the external guiding authority being a man instead of God. It then follows that to ensure fair treatment one must return to the state of nature. Hobbes’ only offered alternative is to appeal to God, which while effective is not a political alternative and can be achieved outside a commonwealth. Thus punishment is the means of enforcing law determined by the law inherent to a democratic government.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that organize people into societies, and is effective in persuading us that a limited government is the best government.
Lockes and Hobbes ideas of government differed greatly, Hobbes believed in an absolute government while Locke believed in a very limited one.Locke believed that people were naturally good and trustful and that they had the capacity to govern themselves. So the need of the government only came in the form of stopping any potential disputes that would occur. While Hobbes believed that humans were not all that good and their need for government stemmed from the fact that people cannot govern themselves. Furthermore Locke believed that the governments role was to listen to the people it was governing, a rule by consent. While Hobbes believed that the Government was to rule on it’s own and owed no answers or consent by the people. Moreover Locke believed that the purpose of the government was to protect the property and freedom of its people, while Hobbes believed that the governments role was to tell them what to do. But arguably the biggest difference between the philosophies is the notion of government accountability. Hobbes believed that the government had free reign to do what they please with no backlash, while Locke believed that if the social contract was broken then the people of the community had the right to revolt and over throw the government. To further this point Locke unlike Hobbes believed that leaders should
Machiavelli divides all states into principalities and republics, principalities are governed by a solitary figure and republics are ruled by a group of people. With Hobbes’ Leviathan a new model for governing a territory was introduced that can no longer be equally divided into Machiavelli's two state categories. Hobbes combines the concepts for governing principalities and republics into a new type of political thought that is similar to and different from Machiavelli. Hobbes, unlike Machiavelli, is on the side of the people and not the armed prophets. Hobbes believes that the function of society is not just merely living, but to have a safe and comfortable life. He believes that by transferring all rights to a sovereign the threat of the state of nature will be diminished. A sovereign elected will be able to represent and protect everyone equally, they are not a ruler of the people but a representative. The Leviathan differs from a principalities and a republics by establishing the institution of the commonwealth through the social contract.
Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature. Even though they both believed that men naturally have to some extent equality and freedom, what makes their concepts different is the presence or absence of the natural law. In Hobbes' theory, men in their natural state are at constant war, the war of all against all. Another Hobbes belief is that most people are selfish and tend to do everything for their own reason. To Hobbes humans are driven to maximize personal gains so in a world where there are no rules humans are in constant fear of each other as they each try to get as much as they can, enough is never enough.
Hobbes, an aristocrat who lived through the English civil war, had to flee England, watch his monarch’s execution, and observes the violence of human nature at its very worst. Given this experience, his central concern was the need for absolute power to maintain peace and prevent another civil war. On the other hand, John Locke lived and wrote forty years later, after the Glorious Revolution. His ideas developed in the context of a period in which individual’s rights and power were emphasized. He believed that individuals needed freedom from control to reach their full potential. Hobbes became an advocate for absolutism--the belief that because humans are naturally power seeking, a sovereign is needed to maintain peace, and the individual must completely submit to that power. In contrast, Locke advocated constitutionalism, the belief that all individuals have inherit rights, government should be based on consensus, and citizens must fight for their liberty in the face of an overpowering government. These philosophers and their ideas outlined the debate about where power should lie in society–with the individual or with the state.
Hobbes and Locke’s each have different ideologies of man’s state of nature that develops their ideal form of government. They do however have similar ideas, such as how man is born with a perfect state of equality that is before any form of government and social contract. Scarcity of goods ultimately leads to Hobbes and Locke’s different states of nature that shapes their two different ideal governments because Hobbes believes that scarcity of goods will bring about a constant state of war, competition, and greed of man that cannot be controlled without a absolute sovereign as government while Locke believes that with reasoning and a unified government, man will succeed in self preservation of himself and others.
”3 He believes that all men are equal in the state of nature despite any preexisting differences between them because they are ultimately powerful enough to defend themselves and their resources. “Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of the body, and mind; so that though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himself at any benefit, to another may not pretend, as well as he. ”4 Hobbes implies that it is necessary for a civil government to dictate over its citizens because humans are naturally in a state of war, and equally capable I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which ultimately prevents the state of war from occurring in society.
Above anything else, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan is a creation story and an investigation of human nature. The story begins in a time of chaos and death and through a journey of human development culminates in the establishment of a sustainable and rational society—the commonwealth—led by a sovereign. At a first casual glance, Hobbes’ reasoning of the transformation from the state of nature to the commonwealth is not airtight. A few possible objections can be quickly spotted: the contradictions of natural law with suicide and the civil law to honor even harmful covenants. Hobbes deals with some of these issues and seems to ignore others, but he does address in detail the most significant objection to his theory: the unlimited and unchecked power given to the sovereign. The establishment of the commonwealth culminates in a covenant that grants the sovereign absolute power in enforcing the civil laws of the state, but also guarantees the sovereign’s status as above the law. How does this ensure peace and survival, as is the point of the commonwealth? Hobbes provides many convincing reasons why it would be difficult, counterproductive, and impossible for the sovereign to not be above the law, but in the end, disorder and chaos are worse than any tyranny.
In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern
Hobbes explanation of the state and the sovereign arises from what he calls “the State of Nature”. The State of Nature is the absence of political authority. There is no ruler, no laws and Hobbes believes that this is the natural condition of humanity (Hobbes 1839-45, 72). In the State of Nature there is equality. By this, Hobbes means, that there is a rough equality of power. This is because anyone has the power to kill anyone (Hobbes 1839-45, 71). Hobbes argues that the State of Nature is a violent, continuous war between every person. He claims that the State of nature is a state of w...
While Thomas Hobbes believed that all people were wicked only fighting for their own interests, John Locke believed that person were naturally good and once they were born, they were empty slates which makes them learn from their experiences instead of just being outright evil. John Locke believed in democracy because if a government is like an absolute monarch, it won’t satisfy all the needs of the people and this is why the people have a right to revolt against an abusive government as proven in the American Revolutionary War with King George III or the French Revolutionary War with King Louis XVI who didn 't support their citizen’s ideas and goals. Thomas Hobbes believed that people couldn 't be trusted because they would only fight for their own interests, so an absolute monarch would demand obedience to maintain order, but John Locke States that people can be trusted since all people are naturally good but depending on our experiences as they can still govern themselves. The Purpose of the government, according to John Locke is to protect the individual liberties and rights instead of just keeping law and order because with law and order being put strictly, the people would rebel because it didn’t represent them and then the country will collapse because the king was too
...rbitrary power to transfer. Secondly, a government which is not bound by standing laws is really no government at all because it remains in a state of nature with its citizens. Thirdly, the Hobbesian sovereign’s right to take away his subjects’ property makes the establishment of this form of government absurd, because the purpose of government is primarily the protection of property. Absolute arbitrary government comes about when the legislature exceeds its authority. A legislature that abuses its power against it’s subjects’ interests is guilty of rebellion. In essence then, the government which Hobbes proposes to exit the state of war, would, for Locke either directly introduce or set the stage for civil war.
Hobbes and Locke’s Ideas of government reflects subjects that have been put in place, rejected many times, or are still in consideration. The idea to allow the government to have access to our text messages, our emails, and our phone calls to prevent crime and terrorism would be an example of Hobbes idea of government as having an absolute ruler with unlimited power would do whatever is necessary to prevent chaos. But in todays society Locke’s idea of government has been favored as the government would only be able to do that with a warrant and reason for the warrant, to protect our natural rights. Locke’s idea of government reflects our police department regulations also; to protect our natural rights police have limited power, as they cannot do whatever they feel necessary to prevent crime. But if the police department was reflected by Hobbes idea of government the police could do whatever they felt necessary, which in today’s society could actually cause more chaos, then prevent
There are many explanations for what punishment characterises. For Emile Durkheim, punishment was mainly an expression of social solidarity and not a form of crime control. Here, the offender attacks the social moral order by committing a crime and therefore, has to be punished, to show that this moral order still "works". Durkheim's theory suggests that punishment must be visible to everyone, and so expresses the outrage of all members of society against the challenge to their collective values. The form of punishment changes between mechanic (torture, execution) and organic (prison) solidarity because the values of society change but the idea behind punishing, the essence, stays the same - keeping the moral order intact not decreasing crime. Foucault has a different view of the role or function of punishment. For Foucault, punishment signifies political control. His theory compares the age of torture with the age of prison, concluding that the shift from the former to the latter is done due to changes in society and new strategies needed for the dominance of it by the rulers. Punishment for Foucault is a show of power first brutal and direct (torture), then organised and rational (prison). Punishment does not get more lenient because of humanitarian reasons but because the power relations in society change.
Hobbes believes that if there is no government then it will lead to a state of war. This is because the people can have different judgement which cause them to not have an agreement on what the government should contain. This means that the people did not view each other as equal and did not have the same morals as Locke would believe in. It can also lead to a state of war if the people don’t have the right to property since it will cause the peace to break. However, the only type of state Hobbes believes in is the Leviathan state that has only one