Compare And Contrast Hobbes's View Of The Social Contract And John Locke
analytical Essay
1368 words
A John Locke Response to the Hobbesian Social Contract In recent times, I have read Thomas Hobbes ' proposal of what he deems a fair and secure social contract. In leaving the uncertain, insecure State of Nature, both Thomas Hobbes and myself have developed two forms of life beyond this state, in which, we may give up some liberties in order to maintain security and assurance. To what one may surrender their rights granted in the State of Nature, would be a governed society ruled by one of many forms of government through acceptance of the social contract by the subjects of that society. As theorists, we have provided our own versions of the contract which have many differences as far as: the purpose of a government, where sovereignty lies, …show more content…
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes john locke's response to the hobbesian social contract. they argue that society is better defined under a more constitutional, limited government.
- Argues that hobbes' view of the state of nature is a time of war, where murdering one another is essential to maintain this survival.
- Opines that hobbes has failed to see the true state of natural human beings.
- Explains that hobbes discusses the rights given to the sovereign by the consent of the people, but creates a sovereign above the covenant, exempt from the limitations placed upon all within the contract.
- Explains that legislative power is meant for a government of limited power that will not take away man's natural rights.
- Explains that the power of the covenant is maintained by two sides: the government, and the people; and is not unbreakable.
- Explains that in the more sensible commonwealth, there is a permissible cause for rebellion. if the monarch, legislature, or other governing authority acts unjustly, it is there that the contract is broken.
- Argues that hobbes' view is that humankind evolves into a governed society by social contract. however, government secures our natural rights by upholding natural laws and executes power as it is originally agreed upon by the subjects of the covenant.
Hobbes ' view of the state of nature, "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe," is a time of war "and such a war as is of every man against every man". In this war, Hobbes finds it is a condition where war is permissible for the sake of survival for the individual, and murdering one another is essential to maintain this survival. It is in his Leviathan where his laws of nature describe the premise of this war between all individuals. It is the first law, of which, men ought to seek peace, and, secondly, defend themselves in order to maintain that peace. Thus, it is morally permissible to conquer any type of obstacle impeding one 's survival even if that obstacle is of the same species. However in this natural state, Hobbes finds, even with these first two laws, the natural state is full of "continual fear" and the life of man is " solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" because of this continual fighting. Thus, he deems it necessary to come to mere terms of agreement among one another into a society of rational, civil beings under the authority of a ruler in order to enforce peace among the subjects and save us from our natural
Related
- argumentative
- analytical
- Hobbes and Locke: Comparing and Contrasting Political Philosophiesargumentative essay(A) Comparing and contrasting the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are comparable in their basic political ideologies about man and their rights in the state of nature before they enter a civil society. Their political ideas are very much similar in that regard. The resemblance between Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies are based on a few characteristics of the state of nature and the state of man. Firstly, in the state of nature both Hobbes and Locke agree that all men are created equal, but their definitions of equality in the state of nature slightly differ. According to Locke, “…in the state of nature… no one has power over another…” Locke’s version or idea of equality in the state of nature is based around the equality of authority and control.
In this essay, the author
- Compares hobbes and locke's political philosophies about man and their rights in the state of nature before they enter a civil society.
- Explains that hobbes believes that the cause of the state of war is the nature of man, perfect equality and self-preservation.
- Argues that locke's law of nature goes against hobbes' idea of self-preservation, because it doesn't allow for man to harm another’s life, liberty, health or possessions.
- Analyzes how hobbes and locke differ on the rights of the sovereign and the citizens in a civil society after the consent is given.
- Explains that hobbes believes that the subjects do not have the right to revolt or rebel against the government.
- Explains that hobbes' political philosophy says that the sovereign has absolute power and if that power were to be divided then nothing would be accomplished in government and the "intellectual dissention" would create conflict and rebellion.
- Compares hobbes' and locke's political philosophies on the rights of the sovereign and citizens in a civil society.
- Compares locke's beliefs of the rights of citizens and hobbes' belief that man must give up their rights and privileges in the state of nature.
- Explains that the supreme power, according to locke, does not have absolute power over the government and the people.
- Opines that hobbes' reaction to locke's political philosophy would be one of negative confusion. he would also be confused about how a fellow englishman could advocate the division of sovereign power after the english civil war.
- Explains that locke's political philosophy is an improvement upon hobbes' ideas because they are based off his main points.
- Compares hobbes and locke's political philosophy, which is based on stability in the commonwealth, and censorship and obedience to the sovereign.
1747 wordsRead More - Hobbes State Of Governmentanalytical essayOne of the most important foundations of Hobbes political philosophy is his reasoning for the importance of government. Hobbes argues that without the presence of government human life would be unbearable, in fact he even goes as far as to say that without government we would live a life of everlasting war with one another. In this paper I will support Hobbes’ claims as to why government is vital, I will also compare Hobbes’ description of the state of nature to the state of the world today.
In this essay, the author
- Argues that hobbes' political philosophy is based on his reasoning for the importance of government.
- Explains that hobbes believes that in the state of nature there is a perpetual war of all against all, driven by felicity, the continual success of satisfying human desires.
- Analyzes how hobbes defines power as one's present means to obtain some future apparent good. he believes that reputation of power is also power.
- Explains that hobbes believes there is no singular power to regulate people's behavior since there are no law givers, a common power, or an enforcer.
- Explains that hobbes believes that the best way of preserving one's life in the state of nature is to follow the laws of nature.
- Opines that hobbes believes that a state without government is fueled with distrust and war, where people fight for power, gain, safety, and reputation.
930 wordsRead More - The Influence of Locke and Hobbes on Governmentanalytical essayThomas 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.
In this essay, the author
- Argues that thomas hobbes and john locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy.
- Explains that thomas hobbes believes that the optimal form of authority is one that has absolute power over its people, consisting of just one person who retains the exclusive ability to oversee and decide on all of society's issues.
- Analyzes hobbes' views on human nature, what the state of nature consists of, and what role morality plays in the leviathan.
- Explains that moral laws, with the principal being that people "ought to endeavour peace" with any means necessary, will not bind in foro externo in the state of nature.
- Analyzes hobbes' view that it would be rational for people to initiate an agreement that would extinguish crippling difficulties. psychological egoism has an important role in this.
- Explains that a strong ruler must come in, seize power, establish an absolute monarchy, and rule with an iron fist over those people that were recently fighting for their lives.
- Analyzes how an organized society forms in which the consequences of not adhering to the rules and regulations of the covenant will be so severe that no one would attempt to violate this contract and disobey the sovereign.
- Explains that the limitless sovereign is justified based on hobbes' views on human nature.
- Analyzes how locke concludes that hobbes' ideas are erroneous and that the ideal government would be limited, decentralized, and rule under the law and operate with separated powers.
- Compares locke's "two treatises of government" and hobbes' apocalyptic version of nature.
- Argues that locke's state of nature allows humanity to govern itself, even when taking into account issues that come with a self-interested body of people.
- Explains that the state of nature, according to locke, is a place without set government, where people have unlimited rights. the people are bound by the natural law.
- Analyzes how papadogiannis 6harm others "in their life, liberty, health, and property" and expect their own rights to be respected. hobbes would argue that the father or mother would kill their neighbor for food.
- Argues that locke's individualism is crucial when he tries to persuade his reader on the importance of a limited government.
- Analyzes locke's argument that an unlimited sovereign is an illogical notion. since the neighbor is innocent, he or she is permitted to defend their life.
- Explains that for a state of war to be avoided, common authority is imperative. citizens will have to part with some of their unlimited rights to this new government.
1741 wordsRead More - Beliefs Of Locke's Leviathan By Thomas Hobbes And John Lockeanalytical essayThomas Hobbes and John Locke were both social contract theorists who set the foundational footprints for the fundamentals of political life right into our own times. The two great thinkers imagined the world without a state in order to determine the legitimacy of the state that is present in reality. They differed greatly in their notions of the ‘state of nature’ and in doing so they developed contrasting conceptions of the role of the state and the nature of rights and liberty granted to the people. Hobbes’ political regime relies on the protest that the sovereign should have unlimited rights with no dissent or dissolution such that public and private interests are parallel. On the other hand, Locke sees man as a creature of reason rather than one of desire wherein he believes that the purpose of the government is to uphold and protect the natural rights of men that are independent of the state. The dichotomy in their beliefs construes their different translations of liberty.
In this essay, the author
- Compares the views of thomas hobbes and john locke on the role of the state and the nature of rights and liberty granted to the people.
- Analyzes how hobbes maintains that human judgment is distorted to pursue self-interest ends without regard for anything other than the avoidance of pain and the incentive of pleasure.
- Analyzes how locke's view about human condition in the state of nature is not as miserable as hobbes'. he believed that god made man naturally free to pursue life, liberty, health, and property as natural rights.
- Explains that both hobbes and locke furnish a basis for the existence of political power. the origin of the state becomes pertinent in bringing laws and government to men and abandons their state of nature.
710 wordsRead More - Hobbes Vs Rousseau Social Contract Essayanalytical essaySocial contract adheres to the concept that in pre-societal terms man relied on the state of nature: life with no government and no regulation. Interpretations of state of nature from English Philosopher Thomas Hobbes and that of French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau differ on the basis of development and operation of the social contract. Hobbes proposed that man lived in fear and self-interest to the point that it was in human nature to seek security and self-protection to which he [man] enters a social contract. While Rousseau argues that man’s individualism, freedom, and equality is diluted through the formation of modern civilization and is “forced to be free” (p.46). How social contract operates from perspective of Hobbes and Rousseau
In this essay, the author
- Explains that social contract adheres to the concept that in pre-societal terms man relied on the state of nature: life with no government and no regulation. hobbes proposed that man lived in fear and self-interest
- Argues that hobbes' (1651) conception of human state of nature rivets around the notion that man is in a constant war in order to obtain "gain...safety...and reputation."
- Analyzes how rousseau's view of man’s state of nature is free and equally assured. private property or slavery exemplifies that man surrenders not to the sovereign of one but that of general will.
- Analyzes how hobbes and rousseau's perspectives of the operation and development of social contract revolve not only on the socio-political context but also the general perception of how the state of man in nature results to the agreement of pactum unionis.
572 wordsRead More - In Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, Hobbes introduces a fundamentally novel concept of the roots of politics and civic government. His ideas are based on his own views of human nature, which he believes to be disturbingly chaotic if left without structure. Hobbes believes, that the only way to guarantee society’s peace and security from such chaotic nature, is to establish a sovereign to rule over the commonwealth. Therefore, he proposes that the most practical and efficient sovereign is one that is all powerful with unlimited rights. However, although Hobbes’ mostly well-reasoned ideas create this ideal omnipotent sovereign, there are a few problems with his argument that cause it to fail; mainly because human nature does not allow for the cultivation of a covenant, the assumptions that Hobbes makes of the omnipotent sovereign is improbable if not impossible, and finally, Hobbes’ ideas regarding the rights of the sovereign are contradictory to some of his other political ideas.
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes hobbes' belief that humans are fundamentally defective, and that the sovereignty must be omnipotent, with unconstrained power that rules the commonwealth indefinitely.
- Analyzes how hobbes introduces a fundamentally novel concept of the roots of politics and civic government in leviathan.
- Analyzes how hobbes' argument relies heavily on a compassionate monarch who can set aside his own interest and personal conquests for the betterment of his people.
- Analyzes how hobbes' reliance on a benevolent monarch makes his political regime seem less practical.
1127 wordsRead More - 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
In this essay, the author
- Explains the foundations of contractualist and utilitarian ethics in thomas hobbes' 17th century writings.
- Argues that contractualist ethics relies on the consent of the governed, which has been argued for in different methods by different philosophers.
- Explains that utilitarianism is consequentialist ethical system that focuses on the results of actions, rather than the actions themselves.
840 wordsRead More - Comparing Hobbes and Locke's Versions of the Social Contractanalytical essayComparing Hobbes and Locke's Versions of the Social Contract Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan, claims that peace and unity can best be achieved by setting up a society by having humans agree to a covenant (Hobbes: Ch.18 pg.548). A sovereign who is in charge of protecting the society or state rules Hobbes’s society. In his introduction, Hobbes describes this commonwealth as an "artificial person" and as a body politic that mimics the human body. Hobbes portrays the state as a gigantic human form built out of the bodies of its members, the sovereign as its head (Hobbes: Introduction pg.492). Hobbes calls this figure the "Leviathan," which means "sea monster" in Hebrew and is the name of a monstrous sea creature appearing in the Bible.
In this essay, the author
- Compares hobbes and locke's versions of the social contract, stating that peace and unity can be achieved by setting up a society by having humans agree to the covenant.
- Explains that john locke, author of second treatise of government, places sovereignty into the hands of the people. he claims that people are equal and have natural rights in a state of nature.
- Analyzes hobbes' claims that everyone is equal, should fight for self-preservation, and must give up some rights to be able to enter a society.
- Explains that hobbes claims that freedom is the lack of impediments. there are two types of freedom: positive and negative. natural rights include self-preservation, equality, and the ability to punish
- Explains that hobbes defines natural rights with three natural laws. the first natural law states that a human has the right to self-preservation by defending oneself even if it means going to war.
- Explains that hobbes believes that people have to exchange some of their natural rights in order to enter into a society with other people.
- Explains john locke's claim that human beings all have the same natural rights; all people are equal in nature. everyone has the right to self-preservation.
- Explains that a political society is created in order to set down laws and punishments, and also to protect its members.
- Explains that locke and hobbes differ on a couple of points concerning natural rights and the society.
- Analyzes how locke and hobbes differ in that they believe that god is a factor in politics.
- Compares hobbes' and locke's versions of the social contract.
- Explains that a government is formed with the basic purpose to serve the common good of the people. locke justifies overthrowing the government if it is not protecting the rights of subjects.
- Analyzes how hobbes and locke constructed their own versions on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly.
1344 wordsRead More - Locke's Theory Of A Social Contract By Hobbes And Lockeanalytical essayThe founding fathers were politicians but, were also brilliant political philosophers. They looked for help for the western tradition of political philosophy as they looked for the ideal government. Hobbes and Locke both theorized that in any society, there existed a “state of nature” when there was no government. The second treatise contains Locke’s own view of justification for the civil government.
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes how hobbes and locke both theorized that in any society, there existed a "state of nature" when there was no government.
- Analyzes how hobbes and locke had different views on the terms of a social contract.
- Analyzes how hobbes and locke had different views on the terms of the social contract between a ruler and the ruled.
- Analyzes how locke expressed his political ideas in "two treaties of government". he believed that before governments became to be, a state of nature existed.
- Explains that locke felt that people should have equal rights and live without a ruler. the state of nature is the natural condition of mankind.
- Analyzes how locke expressed his political ideas in "two treaties of government". he believed that before governments became to be, a state of nature existed.
- Explains that locke felt that people should have equal rights and live without a ruler. the state of nature is the natural condition of mankind.
858 wordsRead More - Thomas Hobbes: Life In The State Of Natureanalytical essayHobbes, Ch.13). This whole quote is primordial to understand just how bad things would have been in Hobbes’s state of nature, by stripping away even most basic things, such as time, or trivial things such as letter and entertainment. There are many factors which influenced his view on the state of nature such as the English Civil War(1642-1651) or the execution of Charles I. The events mentioned earlier may have influenced Hobbes’s pessimistic view on the state of nature. Hobbes makes three basic assumptions about the inner workings of human nature: basic equality, scarcity of goods and moderate egoism. To understand these assumptions better it is important to understand one of Hobbes’s argument. He argues that human beings seek what he calls “felicity”, a state of constant happiness. Hobbes also argued that in a state of nature the search for “felicity” would lead to a state of war. Why? Because in order to achieve “felicity” one must become powerful, and human beings have “a restless desire of power after power that ceaseth onely in Death” (Hobbes, Leviathan, p.161). For Hobbes, the State of Nature would result in a State of War, that Hobbes defines not as fighting, but constant
In this essay, the author
- Explains that life in the state of nature has been tackled by many philosophers throughout time and has arisen questions like "what would life be without institutions such as government, police, courts of law?"
- Analyzes how hobbes argues that human beings seek what he calls "felicity", a state of constant happiness.
- Analyzes how hobbes defines the state of nature as a state of war, which he defines as constant readiness to fight. the social contract theory and the "leviathan" (ruler) come in.
- Analyzes how locke's state of nature is more optimistic than hobbes'. he argues that humans are property of god and should not harm others in nature.
- Analyzes how hobbes' state of nature is violent, while locke's tends to be more congenial. both agree that life in nature would be bad, hence the need for a modern society.
- Cites the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (spring 2014 edition), edward n. zalta, jonathan wolff, oxford university press (revised edition, 2006), thomas hobbes, locke, and awnsham churchill.
1080 wordsRead More