Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Hobbes vs. Locke essay
Compare and contrast john locke theory with thomas hobbes
Hobbes vs. Locke essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Hobbes vs. Locke essay
In many ways Hobbes and Locke’s conclusions on man and society create a polarizing argument when held in comparison to each other. For instance the two make wildly conflicting assertions concerning mankind’s capacity to foster and achieve organized society. Hobbes asserts humans cannot be trusted to govern themselves lest they fall into war and chaos; Locke, on the other hand concludes almost the exact opposite. Despite the polarity in each man’s train of thought, both philosophies share a common ancestor: a state defined by total equality where no human is superior or holds dominance over another. Although this is the base of both theories, it is the only similarity between the two. This commonality can be illustrated when tracing each argument deductively from their conclusions, the comparison reveals that the heaviest and most base opposition in each mans philosophy is his assertions regarding the nature of human beings. One of Locke’s broadest conclusions is his definition of the role of the state. He defines the states only real role is to ensure justice is done based on what he states are unalienable rights granted to all: life, liberty and the pursuit of estate. Because society has given birth to the state to defend these rights that define justice, society also grants legitimacy to the state. We see echoes of Locke’s theories manifested in societal archetypes like democracy and perhaps even certain anarchist theories. Hobbes, on the other hand attested to a role of government akin to monarchy or dictatorship. His definition of the role of the state is a direct inversion of Locke’s. He states society is a creation of the state and therefore the governed surrender their rights so the state can fulfill its main func... ... middle of paper ... ...o self-preservation, and a lack of morals coupled with an inability to establish ownership of property will eventually lead to a state of war. This of course necessitates a ruling state to determine what is good and evil, and to enforce morality and justice. Again Locke claims the opposite, that due to the existence of natural law and an enlightened self-interest, human beings by nature are social and peaceful creatures capable of governing themselves. It is peculiar then, that both these theories –being almost perfect logical inversions of each other- have grown from two different answers to the same question: how would the interactions of completely equal, ungoverned people evolve over time? Reasoning deductively it is clear that Hobbes’ and Locke’s differing views on the nature of human beings is the core difference between their theories of societal evolution.
...s his argument by emphasizing the absolute reason on why property is solely for the use to produce goods and provide services by farming one’s land or building infrastructures; nevertheless the overuse of one’s land exhibits what Locke calls waste, whereas the consumption of goods for the use of trade can result in bartering and wealth. The introduction of wealth creates the motivation for people feel compelled to protect their wealth which leads us back to the concept of entering into a civil or political society for security. Locke believes that civil and political society can ensure the stability, security, and social structure of any given society; but he points out that if the government becomes a tyranny or corrupt only than shall the populace exercise their right to question the authority and overthrow if needed.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state. Their theories are both psychologically insightful, but in nature, they are drastically different. Although they lived in the same timeframe, their ideas were derived from different events happening during this time. Hobbes drew his ideas on man from observation, during a time of civil strife in Europe during the 1640's and 1650's.
Review this essay John Locke – Second treatise, of civil government 1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another.
Although Locke’s description of the state of nature won’t turn out to be as dire as Hobbes’, it rests on the same notion that humans are born equal in the state of nature. Where their views diverge is what this total equality entails. Whereas for Hobbes, the depravity
Locke states that in order for a civil society to be established, the individuals must forfeit some of their rights that they have in the state of nature. This needs to be done so everyone can live together in peace.
2. What is the difference between Hobbes’ and Locke’s conception of the state of nature, and how does it affect each theorist’s version of the social contract?
Locke’s view of the pre-political state begins with his statement that “man is ‘naturally in,’ the state of ‘perfect freedom’ and equality,” (Christman 42). Locke believes that man naturally has the capacity for Reason which in turn allows man direct access to moral laws. Reason provides man with his own individual rights and obligations and moral rights and duties. Furthermore, Locke writes that “‘The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: And Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possession,’” (43). Moreover, man needs an authority to protect and preserve these moral rights which can only executed when, as Locke states, when the “ ‘power and jurisdiction is [are] reciprocal,’” (42). Therefore a social contract is created when human beings unite and the majority of a people agree upon a particular state which protects mans natural freedom and equality.
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
Thomas Hobbes believes that sovereignty should be placed in the hands of a single person who holds absolute power. He argues that this absolute sovereign will ensure the protection and common defense of all citizens and will organize civil peace. Hobbes views the natural state of man as inherently violent and is the “war of every man against every man...
Another concern faced by both philosophers is how the rights of the people are determined. Then, once these rights have been determined, how do they affect society and government? Locke believes that in order to retain one’s rights, one must give up the right to retribution and accept impartial justice in return. This system discourages violence and speaks to the usefulness of society for mankind. By allowing justice to be found in law established by the majority and enforced by an impartial judge society achieves a peacefulness and sense of fairness that could not otherwise be
Each political theorist agrees that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature. The state of nature is the condition men were in before political government came into existence, and what society would be if there was no government. In relation to this the two theorists raised as much praise as criticism for their famous masterpieces.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes each supported different fundamentals of human nature and government amid the seventeenth century. Thomas Hobbes distributed his point of view of the human soul as negative, persuading others to believe that its evilness should be controlled by concealment under an outright ruler. John Locke advanced an idealistic perspective of human instinct in which they lived under a legislature that secured the privileges of the general population.
The main critics of Thomas Hobbes’ work are most often those with a more optimistic view of human nature. However, if one is to really look at a man’s actions in depth, a self-serving motivation can always be found. The main problem with Hobbes’ claims is that he does not account for the more Darwinian perspective that helping one’s own species survive is at the same time a selfish and unwar-like act. Thus his conclusion that without a governing body, we are essentially at war with one another is not completely true as years of evolution can help disprove.
In Locke’s piece, Of the State of Nature Chapter II, he emphasizes the positive views of human nature. Locke not only denounces fear to rule but also supports a no-government form of rule. He believes that man can rise above injustice and keep a fully functioning society without rule or as he states, they can have “A State of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit…..” (Locke). If you give man the freedom to make his own decisions and choices he will make the correct ones. Freedom of choice is what is needed to keep a society intact and functioning, individuals in a society need to feel as if they are in charge of their own destiny. The natural rights of life, such as liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are backed up by the notion of freedom and choice of destiny. An orderly society cannot be fearful or they will not be able to select the correct choices. Fear causes confusion, doubts and overall bad decisions, all of which are not part of a functioning society. Justice through choices is the correct path to maintain
John Locke powerfully details the benefits of consent as a principle element of government, guaranteed by a social contract. Locke believes in the establishment of a social compact among people of a society that is unique in its ability to eliminate the state of nature. Locke feels the contract must end the state of nature agreeably because in the state of nature "every one has executive power of the law of nature"(742). This is a problem because men are then partial to their own cases and those of their friends and may become vindictive in punishments of enemies. Therefore, Locke maintains that a government must be established with the consent of all that will "restrain the partiality and violence of men"(744). People must agree to remove themselves from the punishing and judging processes and create impartiality in a government so that the true equality of men can be preserved. Without this unanimous consent to government as holder of executive power, men who attempt to establish absolute power will throw society into a state of war(745). The importance of freedom and security to man is the reason he gives consent to the government. He then protects himself from any one partial body from getting power over him.