John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are two well-known philosophers who discussed and developed the social contract theory on the principle of “natural law”. Hobbes believed that men should be strongly governed because they cannot look after themselves. As of human nature he believed that society could not exist except by the power of the state. He was convinced that all humans were naturally selfish and wicked. Without government to keep order Hobbes said, there would be "war of every man against every man," and life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." So for none of that to happen he supposed that people had to hand over their rights to a strong ruler. The social contract was the most reasonable source of all that is good and …show more content…
Even though some of their ideas were similar most of them wasn’t for example what they thought of human nature. John thought of that men is by nature a social animal, while Thomas thought men is not by nature a social animal. Locke uses Hobbes’ methodological device of the State of Nature, but he uses it to a quite different way. Locke’s arguments for the social contract, and for the right of citizens to go against their king were influential on the democratic revolutions. If a ruler seeks absolute power, then it’s their right to over throw him. Men has that right by nature is what John believed, although Thomas believed you conceded your rights to the government, in return for your life. To me the man who had the more logical idea was Locke. John Locke idea can somewhat relate to what it’s like today. Furthermore, Locke expressed that government is meant to serve people, by protecting their life, liberty, and property. He is also known for his work Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government, that he only took credit for in his will. His idea influenced many from the American Revolution to Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and Benjamin Franklin. The Second Treatise of Government was based on sovereignty into the hands of the people. Locke's argument is that people are equal and invested with natural rights in a state of nature in which they live free from outside …show more content…
For instance Spinoza, and Rousseau, were some of many that were influenced, who formulated their own different theories of the social contract. Rousseau thoughts unlike Hobbes he visualized a community in which human beings derive most advantage from the rational renunciation of personal desire. He rejected the concept of free will, holding human action to be motivated by one's conception of self-preservation which was opposite of Locke. Spinzoa ideas were similar to Rousseau, in which a powerful, person acts out of understanding; thus freedom consists in being guided by the law of one's own nature, and evil is the result of inadequate
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.
John Locke was perhaps the best example of someone who rejected the absolute view of government and had views that were radically different from it. Locke believe that people were born reasonable and moral – it was their natur...
John Locke was an English philosopher who lived during 1632-1704. In political theory he was equally influential. Contradicting Hobbes, Locke maintained that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance; all human beings were equal and free to pursue "life, health, liberty, and possessions." The state formed by the social contract was guided by the natural law, which guaranteed those inalienable rights. He set down the policy of checks and balances later followed in the U.S. Constitution; formulated the doctrine that revolution in some circumstances is not only a right but an obligation; and argued for broad religious freedom.
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.
What John Locke was concerned about was the lack of limitations on the sovereign authority. During Locke’s time the world was surrounded by the monarch’s constitutional violations of liberty toward the end of the seventeenth century. He believed that people in their natural state enjoy certain natural, inalienable rights, particularly those to life, liberty and property. Locke described a kind of social contract whereby any number of people, who are able to abide by the majority rule, unanimously unite to affect their common purposes. The...
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. 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. This is because doing so would create a state of war in and of itself.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both very important men, and both had a tremendous influence on the upcoming of this country. However, as much as these men had in common, some of their beliefs were very different. For example, Hobbes believed that politics should be based on the desire of power and the fear of death. He wanted to create a powerful state, what he called a “Leviathan”. (“A government to protect the people from one another to keep them in awe”) In the “Social Contract” Hobbes said that men should give up rights to an authority to act for them, on their behalf. He said that sovereign authority had to be absolute to overcome fear of death in nature. With this said, it basically meant that the governments only reason for existing was for the safety of the people. He also believed that no person was subject to any power above them, so there was no certain power to protect any one power from another. “You took by force what you wanted, you are only as safe as your own intellect and physical strength.” So, Hobbes believed that the government should provide protection, well-being, and any other need a citizen might have. If there was no government, there was fear. Locke on the other hand believed that rulers and citizens’ rights should all be restricted by the laws of nature (right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property). He believed that a person should not be under political power without agreeing to the power itself. He said that the people should agree to be under political power, and should agree to government. The government should act only by majority decision, and that the powers are given to the government as trust. The minute that the trust is broken, then the powers can be taken away. He beli...
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.
The understanding of the state of nature is essential to both theorists’ discussions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is equivalent to a state of war. Locke’s description of the state of nature is more complex: initially the state of nature is one of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation”. Transgressions against the law of nature, or reason which “teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions,” are but few. The state of nature, according to Locke’s Treatise, consists of the society of man, distinct from political society, live together without any superior authority to restrict and judge their actions. It is when man begins to acquire property that the state of nature becomes somewhat less peaceful.
Locke also goes into great detail on how this can and should be accomplished, a contrast from Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both argue for two very different types of government — Hobbes an absolute sovereignty, and Locke a much more limited government, outlined with checks and balances. Both men referred to a social contract between that of the sovereign and the people, in which the people agree amongst themselves to relinquish some of their freedoms for the security and safety of having a government. The key differences in the
A theory developed by Hobbes that is also associated with Locke and Rousseau is The Social Contract theory (Friend). The Social Contract was one of Thomas’s more widely accepted theories. It expressed that if a citizen wanted security, they must give up a bit of liberty, in most cases to a higher power that has to ability to provide security (Great). This philosophy was developed by Hobbes in the 17th century, the same century that marked the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment (Enlightenment). The Enlightenment was a period of time from the 17th to 19th century where traditional thought was questioned and new ideas, discoveries, revolutions were produced. People used their own reason and judgment to decide upon issues instead of accepting what their told (Enlightenment). The Social Contract coincided with ideas flowing from The Enlightenment. It can be interpreted that authority is not completely in one ruler, but in the consent of the people. If the governed decided to not give up their liberty, they could lose security. The Social Contract is just another example of how Thomas has shaped the world
Thomas Hobbes? idea of a perfect government was one of small proportions. All of the citizens of a country had a ?covenant?, or promise with the ruler. This covenant with the ruler stated that the citizen would give up the right to govern his or herself, and give that right to the ruler. Hobbes? idea of society arises from an innate competition between every man. Everyone seeks their advantage, and is always at war with everyone else for that advantage. These factions negotiate, according to Hobbes, complying with whatever principles will ensure survival for its members. So according to Hobbes, war is the natural state of man. Peace is only had by our natural tendencies to compromise, and survive.
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.
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are all social contract theorists that believe in how the people should have certain rights with allows them to have individual freedom. They also believe that the people must give consent in order for the government to work and progress. Although Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have similar aspects in their theories, they differ from each other through the reason why a government should be created.