Thomas Hobbes or John Locke? Envision you are an educator and you question your class, “what is the purpose of government?” What responses do you believe you would receive? Which answers are right or wrong, and why? Centuries ago, two political philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, had two different answers to that particular question. Both agreed that men needed government to pull them out of the state of nature. The state of nature is a way to portray the lives of people before societies. But while they agreed on that one thought, Hobbes and Locke had two distinctive opinions on why to pull men out of this state. Hobbes reasons the purpose of government is to guarantee law and order while making citizens “lives desirable and worth living.” While, Locke reasons the purpose of government is to not only guarantee law and order, but also to protect citizens’ rights and properties too. While some may trust that Thomas Hobbes is right, I support John Locke for his three ideas on the type of government, revolution, and the state of nature, which all contribute to the purpose of the government. First most, people may suppose Thomas Hobbes is correct since he preferred an absolute monarchy. An absolute monarchy is when there is one ruler (called …show more content…
Locke provided valuable evidence to support his thoughts and did not contradict himself like Hobbes. I agree with John Locke that the purpose of government is to protect and serve its people for the common good. As he would say, the purpose of government is “ being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty, and property…” (Locke). In other words, although men give up some of their freedoms from when they were in the state of nature, they gain many benefits that are worth
...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 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. Each man has the authority to judge and punish themselves, but they do not have “…license to abuse others…” On the other hand, Hobbes’ definition of equality is based around the equality of man physically and mentally because “Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of the body and mind…” Nevertheless, the natural equality in both Hobbes and Locke’s states of nature contribute to man’s urge and want to join a civil society.
Thomas Hobbes believes that the optimal form of authority is one that has absolute power over its people, consisting of just one person who will retain the exclusive ability to oversee and decide on all of society’s issues. This Sovereign will be constituted by a social contract with the people. With that, the Sovereign will hold all of the citizens’ rights, and will be permitted to act in whichever way he or she deems necessary. The philosopher comes to this conclusion with deductive reasoning, utilizing a scientific method with straightforward arguments to prove his point.
This is because Hobbes travels a lot, and realize people are born evil. He said people act impulsively without government. Today our government is limited. The trail of tears illustrates a belief in limited government. In the 1820-1840s the United States government forced several tribes of Native Americans to migrate to reservations west of the Mississippi River. Justice was not being equally administered to all degrees of people as Hobbes thought a unlimited government would be. I believe that without government, human would naturally be in a state of war. This is because it is the human nature to desire power. It is shown in everyday lifestyle that we fight to obtain control. For example, people fight over money to gain control. People commit crimes to show that they have some sort of power. Without government, the world would be a chaotic place. Therefore I believe that a government is a necessary element for society to control people’s greed over control. On the other hand, in contrast to Hobbes, Locke believes human are born good. I personally agree with Locke that humans are born good but society blinds our innocence and creates a second human nature to desire
... prominent in Europe during this period. Hobbes felt that this was the only type of government that would that would assure peace. One authority or power would set the laws and everyone in turn would follow them.
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.
Locke’s belief in “consent” by the people creates a democratic structure of community. In this way, the community is merely created to protect the rights and the property of the people. His idealistic government would have the power controlled by those who are being ruled, the people. Locke explains that we must “make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest” (Locke 101).The government is a reflection of the “majority” of the community, and will represent the wishes of the people. The power is held by those who are being ruled, and they have equal rights in deciding their political outcomes. Locke explains that “wherever law ends, tyranny begins”, so once the rights of the people are suppressed this injustice begins (Locke 102). Locke also explains that if a government was to act unjust, not with the best interest of the majority, then it is the right and the responsibility of the people to overthrow “tyranny” (Locke 102). The people, who have the power, should always defend their human rights, especially from unlawful rulers. This view of government shifts with Hobbes’ perspective. Hobbes believes that one man should rule the community, and therefore the government should have power in the ruler rather than the people being ruled. This single ruler will be educated about the corrupt nature of mankind and the bad nature of
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
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.
Many philosophers believe that a correct government can make a strong society. However, these philosophers do not agree on what form of government is the most “correct”. English philosopher John Locke believes that Man is inherently moral and that the purpose for government is to grant the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to its people. Another philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, however, holds the belief that mankind is naturally evil and that society needs an absolute central authority to contain this evilness and grant its people with the common protection. Hobbes believes that in a state of nature, when there are no rules and everyone is granted equal
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.
Hobbes had a pessimistic view of people; he believed humans were selfish creatures who would do anything to better their positions. He also thought that people could not be trusted to make decisions on their own, and a country needed an authority figure to provide direction and leadership. Therefore, Hobbes believed in an absolute monarchy - a government that gave all power to a king or queen. He also thought that people should obey their king, even if he is a tyrant. He said that because people were only interested in promoting their own self-interests, democracy would never work. In fact, he thought democracy was very dangerous. But even though he distrusted democracy, he believed that a diverse group of representatives presenting the problems of the common person would prevent a king from being unfair and cruel. Hobbes coined the phrase, "Voice of the people," meaning one person could be chosen to represent a group with similar views.
In Locke’s book the Second Treatise on Civil Government, he begins by describing the state of nature as a place where men exist in perfect freedom where they are able to pursue their own goals, as long as they do not infringe on the equal liberty of others (II. 4-7). This limitation differentiates Locke from Hobbes. Hobbes argued that freedom and equality and the importance of individual rights, allowed individuals in the state of nature to pursue their survival and interest without limitation (Leviathan, XII, p. 80). They had no duty to respect the rights of others. This is why the state of nature, for Hobbes, was a state of war (Leviathan, XII, p. 79). Whereas Locke believed that individual...
promote their self-interests, democracy wouldn’t be a great idea because he wrote that “All mankind is in a perpetual and restless desire for power which can only stop in death,” so giving power to the individual would be creating a dangerous situation which would start a “war of every man against every man, “and life will be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Despite all this, Thomas Hobbes still believed a diverse group of representatives that can present the problems of the common person to king, so prevent them from being cruel and unfair but the monarch has the final
Philosophers tend to be of those rare breed of individuals who have their unique outlook on life and on the world in general. When looking at the philosophers who lived around the end of the Renaissance period, common themes of mortality, human nature, and the divine all tend to get blurred into overarching ideologies about the world and the nature of humanity in general. While not all philosophers focus on the same idea of humanity and the human condition, John Locke and David Hume both took particular interest in the ways that humans view themselves, the world around them, and the subject of identity of self in contrast to the universe. Through analysis of John Locke’s perspectives as shown in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding