Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Similarities between Hobbes & Locke political philosophy
Similarities and differences hobbes v locke
Social contract hobbes and locke compare contrast
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Hobbes and Locke’s ideas and notions of the social and political contracts, as well as natural rights and order.
Social contract:
-what is it in each view?
-what rights are lost/received?
-why does each believe a contract should be formed?
-Who is involved in the contract?
-how does the contract change human society?
-how does it shift from a state of nature to a contract?
Natural rights:
-what are the natural rights in each view?
-who benefits from the natural rights?
-is there a reason to form a contract with the rights?
-are the rights similar in any way?
-how do they function in a social society?
Hobbes and Locke on the Social Contract and the Concept of Natural Rights.
Although Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are both social contract/natural own life brings about one of the most fundamental of Hobbes’ laws, and the reason for which he thinks that contracts must be formed: the law of self preservation. The simplest and easiest way for man to maintain his own life, is to abolish the state of perpetual war, and instead search for peace . The idea of peace is one of a society with one ruler, whose power
5
overwhelms and awes all of the subjects of the society - his power prevents the regular citizens from using their own natural power against each other, as his power to punish trumps all. This common power, or ruler, is transferred the rights of all the citizens in the society, and is trusted with its safety, peace and prosperity .
6
Hobbes’ view of human nature comes off as very pessimistic, and his need for contract is out of a natural distrust for others. Locke on the other hand has a more liberal view of the state of nature, though he does tie into Hobbes’ ideas of contract in a similar manner. Human nature, and the state of nature, as viewed by Locke, is very liberal in comparison to Hobbes’ view. Locke sees the state of nature as a state of perfect freedom and perfect equality, within the bounds of the law of nature . The law of nature, as viewed by
10
Locke does not state that this method is perfect, as “monarchs are but men” , but it
11
appears to be the best method of resolving and regulating justice in conflicts in the population. Judging by the states of nature I have outlined it may be tempting to come to the conclusion that Hobbes and Locke share nearly polar opposite views on the subject, though
I would argue that is incorrect. Locke’s view on the state of nature is definitely more liberal, given that he believes humans hold a natural empathy towards others, though this again brings up the idea of preservation. Hobbes’ need for peace from the social contract can be related to Locke’s, as Locke implies that humans will naturally try to undermine others for their own gain, though instead of outright overpowerment of people, through a skewed
“justice system”. Locke goes one step further about the war on “property” (Hobbes says all men fight for common desires, which two men cannot share ), saying that men, will try to
12
steal and undermine others instead of simply killing and fighting, implying a (possibly lower) sense of distrust between people.
Onto
The foremost aspects to consider from the Leviathan are Hobbes’s views on human nature, what the state of nature consists of, and what role morality plays. Hobbes assumes, taking the position of a scientist, that humans are “bodies in motion.” In other words, simple mechanical existences motivated solely to gain sati...
He takes off with a hypothetical scenario that he refers to as “the state of nature”, wherein he analyzes the condition of individuals before the emergence of states. In such a state society is deemed to be chaotic and all men are considered equal and all have a right to act so as to survive , In such a state of nature he refers to human life as being “nasty, solitary, brutish and short”. He states three laws of nature that man must adhere to in such a state of nature and states that without observance of the laws of nature there will be continuous struggle arising from the conflict of individual judgments as to how best to survive. It is only by ceding will to a Leviathan is order created, based on mutual relation between protection and obedience. Hobbes refers to such a covenant as the “social contract”, whereby the individuals taking part promise to transfer their rights to govern themselves to some sovereign. The Contract is not made between the individuals and that sovereign. Indeed, the “sovereign has an absolute power to govern; there is no point at which he may be considered as subject to those who made the Contract among themselves” . Further, it is important to note that Hobbes has in mind, when referring to the sovereign, a ‘person’ or ‘an assembly of persons’ . For Hobbes law is the command of the sovereign and without a sovereign, law and social contract will cease to exist and he believe...
...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.
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.
Locke stated that people give up rights in return for benefits and the right to life, liberty, and protection of property. However Hobbes was more harsh and said that as long as you mind your own business and don’t get in the way then you won’t be harmed. John Locke’s beliefs are more apparent in today’s world because of the role of democracy in America and our lives, freedom, and property are not being threatened unless you aren’t fulfilling your role in society. The ideas of Thomas Hobbes show in a government such as a monarchy or a dictatorship which aren’t accepted in modern times. People want to feel safe and when you can’t completely control whether or not you or your possessions are harmed citizens will revolt and change to a different more stable government that works for
Comparing the statement of Hobbes with Locke is the following, “It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people," (Locke, 70). Both theories on the sovereign power relate to the human nature. For example, Hobbes’s believes that humans need a strong authority to protect citizens from each other and outside forces, which is why the sovereign has absolute power. Critiquing Locke's perspective , he mentions that the people in state of nature live in peace and tranquility amongst each other, setting moral limits without having a sovereign (central authority).
Self-preservation is an important factor in shaping the ideologies of Hobbes and Locke as it ties in to scarcity of resources and how each of them view man’s sate of nature. Hobbes and Locke both believe in self-preservation but how each of them get there is very different. Hobbes believes that man’s state of nature is a constant state of war because of his need to self-preserve. He believes that because of scarcity of goods, man will be forced into competition, and eventually will take what is others because of competition, greed, and his belief of scarce goods. Hobbes also states that glory attributes to man’s state of nature being a constant state of war because that drives man to go after another human or his property, on the one reason of obtaining glory even if they have enough to self preserve. Equality ties in with Hobbes view of man being driven by competition and glory because he believes that because man is equal in terms of physical and mental strength, this give them an equal cha...
...he 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.
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?
This first paragraph will outline Hobbes’ concept of the state of nature, a necessary starting point to understand the philosopher’s view. In fact, his account of human nature is revealed thanks to the reasons he provides for believing that the state of nature is a state of war. Hobbes describes the state of nature as a place without any form of civil
Two important varieties of rationalist ethics are contractualist and utilitarian ethics. The foundations of contractualist ethics can be found in Thomas Hobbes’ 17th century writings. Hobbes’ most essential arguments are built upon his distinct view of human nature. To Hobbes human beings are “machines in motion” (Hutchings) and are driven by the passion for life, and the fear of death. Hobbes suggests that human rationality is a tool to maximize what we desire and minimize what we fear. In arguing his view of ethics, Hobbes’ uses the example of what he calls the “state of nature”. The state of nature is an imagined early human existence in which there existed no state or authoritative power to control individuals. Hobbes argues that such
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.
This mutual transference of rights is called a contract, or covenant. By adhering to the contract, a man gives up whatever rights set forth by the contract. However, man cannot give up his right to defend himself, for the entire purpose of entering the contract is self-preservation. Once the contract is formed, one must obey Hobbes’ third law of nature, which is to adhere to the contract (Leviathan 1, 14)...
Hobbes, on the other hand argues that justice is needed for people to live together in civil society. He outlines this idea down to human beings in the
...tainly possessed these qualities of life even with all is idiosyncrasies Locke believed we were all created equal that this was “self-evident”. Locke’s’ reason was to abide by the laws of God as well as the government. He thought that we should be mindful of how we treat ourselves and others at all times for as long as we live. . As a result of Locke’s views, he established “New liberties that would be enshrined in civil, social, and political rights”. (Biblical Politics pg. 95) “Although Locke’s new political order left individuals free from subjection to authority and helped overcome gender and similar barriers to personal and social advancement, this order also became problematic: a new-found emphasis on reason ultimately led to a disruption in the human spirit and to new forms of social isolation”.( Biblical Politics pg. 95-96)