Contrasting Hobbes and Locke
Nearly two-hundred and twenty-five years ago the
United States of America chose to fight a Thomas Hobbes
government, with the hope of forming a John Locke
institution. The ideas of these men lead to the
formation of two of the strongest nations in the history
of the world: Great Britain followed by the United
States. Thomas Hobbes viewed the ideal government as an
absolute monarchy, due to the chaos of the state of
nature in contrast, John Locke’s ideal government was a
democracy due to his beliefs of the equality of men.
These men have shared a few of the same beliefs, but
mainly contrast each other.
Thomas Hobbes believed that man by nature is evil.
He however, lived in a time of war and famine, which most
definetly influenced his views. In the state of nature,
Hobbes saw competition,(mainly for material property);
diffidence,(for mans own protection); and glory(for ones
reputation and honor), as the only predicaments capable
of causing quarrels. He saw man’s natural motives
powered by emotions resulting from material possessions;
this puts the state of nature into a state chaos. Hobbes
believed that logically, man would look for a way out of
this chaotic state. A possible solution to this chaos
would be if everyone observed the natural laws of:
justice, equity, modesty, and mercy. In contrast, Hobbes
stated that it would be a laborious task for man to
follow these laws. Hobbes believed that these laws are
contrary to man’s natural passions’, and man would not
willfully obey them unless it is beneficial to himself.
A bond with words alone can not hold a man to keep a
promise, therefore, man needs “the terror of some power
to cause the [laws] to be observ...
... middle of paper ...
...s job to protect the people
although, if the people are not protected due to an
unjust government, then rebellion is justified. Locke
believed the state had a responsibility to the people,
not rights against the people.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had great insight into
the ideas of two of the most empowering and successful
governments of all time. Although their ideas contrast,
each provides a strong base for the purposed governments.
Each man realized the importance of moving beyond the
state nature and chaos within it. Partially because of
the ideas of these men, both present and past governments
of the United States and Great Britain have been strong.
The history of this world could greatly differ if these
governments had never formed.
Bibliography:
Shiller, Edward M. "Locke and Hobbes." Western Heritage, Vol 38(4): 232-240
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.
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
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. Their theories are both psychologically insightful, but in nature, they are drastically different. Although they lived in the same timeframe, their ideas were derived from different events happening during this time. Hobbes drew his ideas on man from observation, during a time of civil strife in Europe during the 1640's and 1650's.
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
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).
Born in Malmesbury, England, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was a philosopher and political theorist widely renowned for his 1651 book Leviathan. He was educated at Oxford, lived for a time in Paris and there met philosopher Rene ́ Descartes, traveled to Italy and met Galileo, and served as a tutor of Charles II. Leviathan brings together parts of Hobbes’s previously published writings, including the 1642 Latin work De Cive and the 1640 Elements of Law, Natural and Political. Hobbes was also author
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.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...
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.
Hobbes’s government is impossible, firstly, because people have no arbitrary power to transfer. Secondly, a government that is not bound by laws is no government at all since it remains in a state of nature with its citizens. Lastly, the Hobbesian sovereign’s right to take away his subjects’ property makes the establishment of this form of government incongruous because the purpose of the government is the protection of property. Absolute arbitrary government comes about only when the government exceeds its authority and is not something that should be strived for. Therefore, the government, which Hobbes proposes to exit the state of war, would, for Locke, directly introduce or set the stage for civil war. In Locke’s Treatise, the social contract binds citizens to a government, which is responsible to its citizenry. If the government fails to represent the interest of its citizens, its citizens have the right and obligation to overthrow it. By contrast, in Hobbes’s Leviathan, there is no reciprocal relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Absolute arbitrary government invests all rights in the sovereign and the citizens forfeit their rights. It is because of these different views on the purpose and origin of government that one can say Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government” is a successful confutation of Hobbes’s
Hobbes explanation of the state and the sovereign arises from what he calls “the State of Nature”. The State of Nature is the absence of political authority. There is no ruler, no laws and Hobbes believes that this is the natural condition of humanity (Hobbes 1839-45, 72). In the State of Nature there is equality. By this, Hobbes means, that there is a rough equality of power. This is because anyone has the power to kill anyone (Hobbes 1839-45, 71). Hobbes argues that the State of Nature is a violent, continuous war between every person. He claims that the State of nature is a state of w...
Although Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have differing ideals concerning the commonwealth or government they have all still contributed greatly to our modern society. As a result of being in the state of nature, where man is focused on self-preservation. This self-preservation leads to a state of war because we are only looking out for ourselves. The consensus of Locke and Hobbes is that in the state of war man cannot be trusted to act rationally concerning
While Thomas Hobbes believed that all people were wicked only fighting for their own interests, John Locke believed that person were naturally good and once they were born, they were empty slates which makes them learn from their experiences instead of just being outright evil. John Locke believed in democracy because if a government is like an absolute monarch, it won’t satisfy all the needs of the people and this is why the people have a right to revolt against an abusive government as proven in the American Revolutionary War with King George III or the French Revolutionary War with King Louis XVI who didn 't support their citizen’s ideas and goals. Thomas Hobbes believed that people couldn 't be trusted because they would only fight for their own interests, so an absolute monarch would demand obedience to maintain order, but John Locke States that people can be trusted since all people are naturally good but depending on our experiences as they can still govern themselves. The Purpose of the government, according to John Locke is to protect the individual liberties and rights instead of just keeping law and order because with law and order being put strictly, the people would rebel because it didn’t represent them and then the country will collapse because the king was too
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.
The main critics of Thomas Hobbes’ work are most often those with a more optimistic view of human nature. However, if one is to really look at a man’s actions in depth, a self-serving motivation can always be found. The main problem with Hobbes’ claims is that he does not account for the more Darwinian perspective that helping one’s own species survive is at the same time a selfish and unwar-like act. Thus his conclusion that without a governing body, we are essentially at war with one another is not completely true as years of evolution can help disprove.
Particularly influenced by specific events taking place during their lifetime, each one of them perceived human nature differently and therefore had variant opinions about the role of government under the Social Contract. For instance, Thomas Hobbes saw humans exclusively as self-interested creatures. He believed that everything we do is frivolously premeditated and rationalized in order to accomplish our objectives and satisfy as many of our desires as possible. From these pessimistic views of human nature, Hobbes goes on to suggest why we would be willing to submit ourselves to political authority. According to Hobbes’ hypothesis, life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."