Thomas Hobbes and John Locke grew up around the same time, so naturally they must have many similarities, but the environment they grew up in resulted in many differences as well. Hobbes grew up during the English Civil War, which shaped his ideas while Locke lived through the Revolution of 1688 which was when a king was overthrown for being unjust and that helped form his ideas. Hobbes and Locke both said that the state of nature is bad and some order is always needed. The difference between their beliefs is the type of government that should be in place to maintain order that is needed to manage stable lives.
...peace. The primary differences in the social contracts of both Hobbes and Locke, therefore, stem directly from their radically opposed viewpoints on mankind’s State of Nature.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both social contract scholars. Social Contract Theory is the speculation that one's ethical commitments are indigent upon an implied understanding between people to structure a general public (Friend, 2004). Both Hobbes and Locke utilize a social contract hypothesis as an issue of clarifying the beginning of government. Hobbes and Locke are principally prestigious for their showstoppers on political reasoning; Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Two Treatise of Government. Each one contains altogether different originations of a social contract in any case, both hold the focal thought that individuals in a State of Nature would be ready to repudiate their freedom for state security (Kelly, 2004, p. 202). While both
These differences affect the livelihood and happiness of people. Hobbes wanted a government to prevent chaos and anarchy as he saw all men were selfish after his experience with the Civil War, while Locke wanted a government to protect everyone’s natural rights. Hobbes Monarch with an absolute ruler, Is different than Locke’s idea of a constitutional government. Hobbes absolute ruler theory forced people to behave themselves, and protected them from killing each other, Locke’s constitutional theory protected their lives, their liberty, and their property. These are different because, while Locke agrees with protecting peoples lives such as Hobbes did, he also believed more than just lives should be protected. Another difference between Hobbes and Locke was their belief if power should be limited. Since Hobbes believed in an absolute ruler, and his idea of government formed a Monarchy, the people were to give up their sovereignty for their own good to the absolute ruler. This gave the absolute ruler unlimited power, which prevented the people from over throwing him. While Locke’s idea of government, which was formed to aid the protection of peoples natural rights and not only to protect themselves from one another, limited the power of the government and gave people the right to over throw the government if they failed to protect their natural rights. Their
The Philosophies between Thomas Hobbes and John Locke going back to the civil war the England government was theocratic. This saw kings as well appointed and their subjects as attractively commanded to obey them. Government was held to be of God rather than a human set-up. There was a “contract of subjection” theory which held that the ruler should provide justice and protection for his subjects in return for their agreement (k 209). James 1, King of England (1603 –25), in his True Law of Free Empires admits that the king ought to behave honorably but that if he did not and broke his side of their contract that did not release his subjects from
Locke and Hobbes were both social contract theorists, and both natural law theorists, but there the resemblance ends. All other natural law theorists assumed that man was by nature a social animal. Hobbes assumed otherwise, thus his conclusions are strikingly different from those of other natural law theorists.
Comparing and contrasting Hobbes and Locke and how they are similar and different. There is really only two ways the way they are similar is they both state of nature. They also believe is social contract.
Hobbes and Locke had very different ideas how government should work. For example Hobbes believes that humans would use the lack of government to do whatever they desire. He believes that there should be a powerful common power/monarchy. He believed that people who did wrong would get punished the right way and if they don’t then they would escalate their crimes and do worse things. In his book The Leviathan Hobbes said in document two, “Where there is no common power, there is no law; where there is no law, no injustice… Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind.” he text from Hobbes’ book support why he believes that man will do worse things if they don’t have a strong hand to stop him from doing worse is
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...
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” are two critical works of modern political theory. Both works try to explain the origin and purpose of civil society and government while answering the questions of what is the state of nature and how did society organized itself in the beginning. However, these authors hold opposing views on how man fits into the state of nature, the means by which a government should be formed, and what type of government constitutes people the best. These fundamental differences arise from the authors’ different conceptions about the condition of human nature and the behavior of humans in “the state of nature.” Hobbes’ Leviathan proposes a system of power that answers to an absolute or omnipotent
Therefore we can say that Hobbes and Locke had the same view on “natural rights” and the necessity of the people. Starting with Hobbes and his theory; he uses the word Leviathan which means "sea monster"(more likely referring to the people killing each other). I think he addresses this issue because in his of absolutism he argues that the people should have a strong tall man who has radiated
Hobbes believed in absolute monarchy because he believed direct democracy would never work. He thought humans were cruel, greedy, selfish and would do anything to better their position, and if they weren't controlled they would fight and kill each other. He believed that in order to avoid chaos, people had to give up their freedom so that the government could keep order. Hobbes believed the state of nature could only be changed by a strong central government to stop rebellion. Hobbes wanted law and higher
Unlike Hobbes, he did not see a state of nature as evil but did agree that people are formed by their educations. In politics, he saw civilization as based on a social contract, in which the ruled and the rulers make agreements based on mutual advantage and legitimacy is conferred on rulers by the consent of those they rule. He was a strong advocate of religious toleration. Rights and equality are yet two other dividing points between Hobbes and Locke. Based on Hobbes' theories there is little to nothing defining right and wrong except for what the individual, in the state of nature, or the state, in society, decides. There is only one natural right, and that is the right of self preservation (Deutsch, p. 263). This is literally might makes right. Hobbes' theories takes an interesting twist in respects to individual rights when in the state of nature because he claims that all men are equal in physical and mental faculties. That while there are some who are stronger than others, the weak are capable of forming confederacies to kill the stronger and so be strong themselves (Hobbes, p.