Society and Government

1858 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Hobbes theory human nature

Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government have produced two definitive and vastly different theories of government. Though both philosophers seem to be embedded in the concept of a natural law, why do Hobbes and Locke seem to come to two opposing conclusions about society and government? The answer lies in critical distinctions between their interpretations on the state of nature, including their conjectures on human nature, their perceptions of freedom and equality, and their ultimate reasoning for civil society.

Human nature is an integral part of the state of nature theory. Hobbes’ theorizes that human nature is flawed, with men being naturally selfish and hedonistic: “of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some Good to himselfe” (Hobbes, 1996, p. 93). This suggests that in a natural state, humans are only guided by their own needs and wants. As a result, Hobbes believes that the only law that governs the state of nature is maintenance of self-preservation. This gives rise to a clashing of desires, which compels man to undermine any concern for others and put oneself above all else.

The extent to which man is able to undermine others for the sake of self-benefit is also limitless according to Hobbes: “in this law of Nature for where no covenant hath preceded, there hath nor Right been transferred and every man had right to everything; and consequently, no action can be Unjust” (Hobbes, 1996, p. 100). There is a clear Hobbesian view of morality that begins to take form. Good and evil seem to be relative to Hobbes. Because of this, each individual in the state of nature has varying perceptions of morality, which often conflict, creating disagreement that only incites violence. This pr...

... middle of paper ...

...have consent in order to act. This essentially gives sovereign power to the people. This philosophy is also consistent with Locke’s favor for a republican structure of government.

The apparent difference seen between the political theories of Hobbes and Locke can be attributed to their differing views on the state of nature. The development of mankind as a selfish being living in a state of war and violently attempting to obtain equality naturally lead Hobbes to conclude that an authoritative power is needed to instill order to chaos. On the other side of the spectrum, Lock molds the state of nature to be a state of peace, and attributing men to Reasonable creatures and consequently creates a representative government where the people hold sovereign power. Essentially, these theories seem are a result of a pessimistic and optimistic framing of nature and humanity.

Show More
Related

  • The Influence of Locke and Hobbes on Government

    1741 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of John Locke: The Second Treatise Of Government

    2379 Words  | 5 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.

    Read More

  • Human Nature as Viewed by Thomas Hobbes and David Hume

    1952 Words  | 4 Pages

    We will give Hobbes’ view of human nature as he describes it in Chapter 13 of Leviathan. We will then give an argument for placing a clarifying layer above the Hobbesian view in order to account for acts of altruism. 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.”

    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

  • On the Virtues of Private Property in Locke and Rousseau

    2220 Words  | 5 Pages

    In order to examine either philosopher’s views on property and its origins, it is necessary to go back to the beginning of human development, as it were, and discuss their different conceptions of the state of nature. As opposed to Hobbes whose vision of the state of nature was a state of war, Locke’s state of nature is a time of peace and stability. “We must consider what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom…A State also of Equality, wherein all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another.” (Locke, Second Tre...

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Rousseau, The State of Nature

    1256 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hobbes’ theory on the condition of the state of nature, and government are not only more applicable today but his reasoning is far sounder than that of Rousseau. These concepts were significantly conditionally reliant. What Hobbes imagined was not a pre-societal period, rather he ...

    Read More

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

    1630 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...ract to which they consented to obey, and hence, subject to his punishment. On the other hand, in Locke’s theory, the government has no sovereignty of its own; consequently, the commonwealth has the right to dissolve the power of the government if it is not working to protect its rights.

    Read More

  • The Expulsion of Freedom

    1396 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, human beings are bestowed with the blessings of freedom during their individual genesis on this fruitful planet, but this natural freedom is immensely circumscribed as it’s exchanged for the civil liberties of the State. He indicated that the supplanting of natural freedom is necessary for the obtainment of greater power for the greater collective community, but the prospect of obtaining superlative capabilities comes with the price of constraints. Yet this notion of natural freedom conflicts with Thomas Hobbes rendition on the state of nature because he illustrates that nature, interface through savagery. According to Hobbes, mankind has endorsed and embraced natures temperament, because this system of truculency and servility that nature orbits adversely affects the nature of mankind, resulting in mankinds affinity for greed, and brutal ambition. Inspite of their conflicting perspectives on the state of nature, both support and explicate on the idea that the preservation and proliferation of mankind as a whole is best achieved through their belief, and withholding the policies of a social contract. The intention of Leviathan is to create this perfect government, which people eagerly aspires to become apart of, at the behest of individual relinquishing their born rights. This commonwealth, the aggregation of people for the purposes of preventing unrest and war, is predicated upon laws that prohibit injustice through the implementation of punishment. Essentially in the mind of both Rousseau and Hobbes, constraints are necessary for human beings to be truly free under the covenants and contracts applied to the civil state at which mankind interface through.

    Read More

  • Hobbes State Of Nature Analysis

    1009 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hobbes describes the State of Nature as a state where all men are equal, since one individual can kill another individual. With this state of inequality, he claims that this equality has an “equality of hope” in accomplishing one’s ends. If two men seek the same end, and only one can have it, the two men would be enemies and would seek to “destroy or subdue one another” (Hobbes 1651, 2). Hobbes goes further to claim that men are not obliged in “keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all” (Hobbes 1651, 2).

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    1937 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Political Philosophy

    1755 Words  | 4 Pages

    Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Modern Liberalism

    1498 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes is frequently credited as being a forefather to modern liberalism. With his beliefs on individualism, along with his agreeance and acceptance of intellectual and moral autonomy it is easy to understand why many modern liberals would agree with Hobbes’s political philosophy. However, Thomas Hobbes does not support the concept of a democratic government, rather he supported the notion of a absolutist government up until his death. Special attention must be given to Hobbes’s denial that autonomy can be thought of, or conceived as, a form of self-government. It is important to take note that Hobbes’s argument against democracy is significantly more exhaustive than merely autonomy. Hobbes believes that democracy cannot work as a form of government due to numerous reasons, three of which will be the focus of this paper. Initially, we will lay a foundation to demonstrate how democracy is not equal to other forms of government, rather it acts more like a launch point for other, more preferable, types of government regimes. Secondly, we will demonstration that democracy reproduces the instability and despair that is accustom with, and found in, the state of nature, which is contradictory to the entire idea of a sovereign. And finally we will establish that while Hobbes consents to and also protects intellectual and moral autonomy, the notion of autonomy, in its political form, as self-government (which may be taken to imply democracy), cannot work because of its contradictory nature. This is a result of the notion, that government, for Hobbes, is responsible for the creation and subsequent enforcement of the laws. Hence, these reasons put forth by Hobbes, in addition to the arguments that will be made against ...

    Read More

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

    3013 Words  | 7 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes And Locke's Theory Of Government

    1460 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two English philosophers who were very similar thinkers. They both studies at Oxford, and they both witnessed the civil Revolution. The time when they lived in England influenced both of their thoughts as the people were split into two groups, those whom though the king should have absolute power, and the other half whom thought people could govern themselves. However Hobbes and Locke both rejected the idea of divine right, such as there was no one person who had the right from God to rule. They both believed in the dangers of state of nature, they thought without a government there is more chance of war between men. However their theories differ, Hobbes theories are based on his hypothetical ideas of the state

    Read More

More about Society and Government

Open Document