Comparing John Locke And Thomas Hobbes Version Of The Social Contract

739 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Analysis Thomas Hobbes state of nature

Thomas Hobbes version of the social contract theory is based on absolute power. The people would enter a one-sided contract where they would give up all their rights to an ultimate power. The ultimate power being a Leviathan, who will be ensured to make all their rights decisions to better the people. Leading to the people not having any power to make any decisions. The ultimate power will have complete control in the one-sided social contract. John Locke’s version of the social contract theory does not involve an ultimate power like a Leviathan. The people would enter a two-way contract with their government where they still retain certain rights of their own. The people can retain natural rights and not a single person can have all the power. …show more content…

State of Nature is the thoughts of what a society might look like if there was not laws or basic structure to a society. Hobbes is a firm believer that the state of nature would be desperate, state of war, with people in constant fear and danger. He thinks that a society in general will crumble under the force of chaos and anarchy that follows in a state of nature. People will quickly turn against one another when precious resources become scares forcing people to pick allies and enemies. Any person that’s let their guard down may be the next ones to be killed for another person to gain a needed resource. Hobbes state of nature will lead to people having rights given to certain people only. The people who come out on top of the social structure through the anarchy of the people. They would be the ones who decide who will be killed next and who will do what. While those who end up on the bottom of the social structure will have next to no rights unless they fight for them. They would be like servants to those of higher power. Everyone would be to be on the top to gain and hold the most rights. Eventually …show more content…

A person chooses to do something based on how they will profit from whatever they are doing. Nobody decides to help another person without finding some way for them to benefit from the situation. Humans are wired to avoid all forms of pain and obtain pleasure instead. Believing this Hobbes has come to the conclusion that humans are materialists. Since most people find gratification through objects that then obtain and hold onto. Man is not only controlled by physical needs but also my psychological wants and needs. Not all gratification can be found in a materialistic object. Hobbes concluded that human nature is ruled by psychological and physical needs, avoid pain and harm, leading everyone to an egoist. Locke on the other hand believes that humans can truly be altruistic instead egoistic. Not everyone will view a situation as what will they gain out of it, but will help others because the genuinely do want to help

Show More
Related

  • Comparing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hobbes' theory is a pessimistic look at human being and the way they act around each other but Locke's theory suggests that people are more easy-going and peaceful towards each other. Hobbes point of view on human nature and how a government should be run is a more realistic way of looking at things than John Locke?s theory though. Both Hobbes and Locke see human nature differently, Hobbes sees people as being run by selfishness whereas Locke says that people are naturally kind. As we see in the news daily, people are often cruel and inhumane, and we also see kinder people in everyday life. We see people who give up their own personal pleasure so they can serve others. But these people are far and few between, it becomes quickly obvious that humans are drawn towards self-happiness.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes Vs John Locke Essay

    763 Words  | 2 Pages

    In conclusion, both Hobbes and Locke theories were influential in politics. They both examined the “state of nature” of man without any government and that in this state that all men are equal. They also both believed that this created risk. Hobbes has a much more pessimistic view than Locke. (http://lifeexaminations.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/comparing-and-contrasting-locke-and-hobbes-state-of-nature/)

    Read More

  • Human Nature as Viewed by Thomas Hobbes and David Hume

    1952 Words  | 4 Pages

    Hobbes views human nature as the war of each man against each man. For Hobbes, the essence of human nature can be found when we consider how man acts apart from any government or order. Hobbes describes the world as “a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...

    Read More

  • Equality: Comparing Hobbes and Locke

    2000 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and inalienable equality in the state of nature.... ... middle of paper ... ... Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of John Locke's Social Contract

    1054 Words  | 3 Pages

    For those who are familiar with John Locke’s social contract should remember that as an individual we give up certain freedoms that we see fit in order to protect our basic rights to life, liberty, and property. If an individual breaks this “contract” then why should they reape its protection. If someone violates the terms of a contract then they lose all that it entails. Why should it be any different in this situation. The individual has willing broken the contract and should suffer as anyone else would in this certain situation. By taking away the rights to life of someone else that person has forfeit their own. This means that they officially become the state 's property does it not? This is something to think of as it would completely change the system by which our criminals of a caliber as high as this would be tried. People that argue against this ask for a sympathetic role to which leads the question to,”To what are you appealing?” At this point they are already unable to contribute back to society. They are in a word a parasite leeching away at the life of those that follow the rules that they as a part of society have created and contribute to.

    Read More

  • Force, Morality and Rights in Thomas Hobbes and John Locke's Social Contract Theories

    1630 Words  | 4 Pages

    Force, Morality and Rights in Thomas Hobbes and John Locke's Social Contract Theories. Throughout history, the effects of the unequal distribution of power and justice within societies have become apparent through the failure of governments, resulting in the creation of theories regarding ways to balance the amount of power given and the way in which justice is enforced. Due to this need for change, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke created two separate theories in which the concept of a social contract is used to determine the ways in which a government can govern without forfeiting justice. In this essay, the relationship between force, morality, and rights within both theories will be investigated in order to determine the most beneficial format for society based on the ideas of the natural condition of mankind, the rights of the government, and the rights of the governed.

    Read More

  • The State of Nature: Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury

    1681 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Thomas Hobbes

    1766 Words  | 4 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2134 Words  | 5 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government

    3013 Words  | 7 Pages

    In Locke’s Treatise, the social contract binds citizens to a government which is responsible to its citizenry. If the government fails to represent the interest of its citizens, its citizens have the right and obligation to overthrow it. By contrast, Hobbes’ Leviathan refers to people as subject rather than as citizens, indicating an absence of a reciprocal relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Absolute arbitrary government invests all rights in the sovereign.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    1044 Words  | 3 Pages

    A state of nature is a hypothetical state of being within a society that defines such a way that particular community behaves within itself. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes proclaimed that, “A state of nature is a state of war.” By this, Hobbes means that every human being, given the absence of government or a contract between other members of a society, would act in a war-like state in which each man would be motivated by desires derived solely with the intention of maximizing his own utility.

    Read More

  • The Social Contract Tradition: Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau

    7326 Words  | 15 Pages

    ABSTRACT: The classical contract tradition of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have enjoyed such fame and acceptance as being basic to the development of liberal democratic theory and practice that it would be heretical for any scholar, especially one from the fringes, to critique. But the contract tradition poses challenges that must be given the flux in the contemporary socio-political universe that at once impels extreme nationalism and unavoidable globalism. This becomes all the more important not in order to dislodge the primacy of loyalty and reverence to this tradition but from another perspective which hopes to encourage that the anchorage of disclosure be implemented. The contract tradition makes pronouncements on what is natural and what is nonnatural. It offers what many have contended are rigorous arguments for these pronouncements that are "intuitive," "empirical," "logical," "psychological," "moral," "religio-metaphysical." What I offer in this essay is a challenge from the outside. I ask: 1) on what empirical data are the material presuppositions of contractarianism built? 2) what is the epistemological foundation of contractarianism? 3) is contractarianism not derivable from any other form of sociological presupposition except that of the state of nature? 4) does any human know a "state of nature"? 5) given the answers to the above questions, to what extent are the legal and moral foundations of contractarianism sacrosanct? I attempt to answer these questions in what can only be a sketch, but my answers suggest that it is very presumptuous of contractarianist to suppose that they have captured the only logically valid basis of democratic practice universally.

    Read More

  • Alienation Social Contract By Thomas Hobbes: The Idea Of Collective Rationality

    1280 Words  | 3 Pages

    By giving up all rights to self-governance to the sovereign, all individuals are reduced to automatons that act on the will of the state. In my opinion, that is too extreme. We should answer the question of the amount of authority to give up instead of doing what Hobbes proposed – which is to give it up entirely. In terms of collective utility, this theory still does not really sit well. Hobbes’ theory of the Alienation Social Contract Theory can possibly result in a state where many are oppressed with no power to fight back, much like the modern dictatorship (just that the dictator are the rules set by the state). As such, it appears to be a very extreme form of “equality”, where everyone is the same. As for freedom, Hobbes’ theory is clearly lacking. The people are only “free” to act within the rules set by the sovereign, regardless whether it is what they really want. Hence, to avoid being crippled by the system that is supposed to safeguard our interests yet enable us to live harmoniously with others, Hobbes’ theory is not a good solution to resolve the tension for it is way too extreme on one

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Social Contract Theory

    891 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes creates a clear idea of the social contract theory in which the social contract is a collective agreement where everyone in the state of nature comes together and sacrifices all their liberty in return to security. “In return, the State promises to exercise its absolute power to maintain a state of peace (by punishing deviants, etc.)” So are the power and the ability of the state making people obey to the laws or is there a wider context to this? I am going to look at the different factors to this argument including a wide range of critiques about Hobbes’ theory to see whether or not his theory is convincing reason for constantly obeying the law.

    Read More

More about Comparing John Locke And Thomas Hobbes Version Of The Social Contract

Open Document