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
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
In conclusion, both Hobbes and Locke theories were influential in politics. They both examined the “state of nature” of man without any government and that in this state that all men are equal. They also both believed that this created risk. Hobbes has a much more pessimistic view than Locke. (http://lifeexaminations.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/comparing-and-contrasting-locke-and-hobbes-state-of-nature/)
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
Locke claims that people are reasonable and inherently good. He believes all people are born equal and are entitled to basic rights such as the right to life, liberty and property. He believed in the social contract theory, he stated that governments should protect individual rights and freedoms, but the people should change the government if it does not serve the people. He believed in religious toleration as well as limited government. On the other hand, Hobbes believed that people are born evil and must be controlled by an absolutist state. An absolutist state that offers protection for its citizens and prevents societal chaos. Hobbes also believed in the social contract theory, which states that the people should give up their freedom in order for the government to provide order and protection. However, Hobbes did not think the people had the right to revolt against the government. I identity with Locke’s philosophy the most. Growing up in a democracy, I believe the government should be representative of the people it governs. I think that humans are born with certain genetic and traits that define us, but we are all open to societal conditioning that mold us accordingly. I think a limited government with checks on its power is the safest, most stable form of government. I strongly disagree with Hobbes’ notion that the people are not entitled to revolt
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
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both very important men, and both had a tremendous influence on the upcoming of this country. However, as much as these men had in common, some of their beliefs were very different. For example, Hobbes believed that politics should be based on the desire of power and the fear of death. He wanted to create a powerful state, what he called a “Leviathan”. (“A government to protect the people from one another to keep them in awe”) In the “Social Contract” Hobbes said that men should give up rights to an authority to act for them, on their behalf. He said that sovereign authority had to be absolute to overcome fear of death in nature. With this said, it basically meant that the governments only reason for existing was for the safety of the people. He also believed that no person was subject to any power above them, so there was no certain power to protect any one power from another. “You took by force what you wanted, you are only as safe as your own intellect and physical strength.” So, Hobbes believed that the government should provide protection, well-being, and any other need a citizen might have. If there was no government, there was fear. Locke on the other hand believed that rulers and citizens’ rights should all be restricted by the laws of nature (right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property). He believed that a person should not be under political power without agreeing to the power itself. He said that the people should agree to be under political power, and should agree to government. The government should act only by majority decision, and that the powers are given to the government as trust. The minute that the trust is broken, then the powers can be taken away. He beli...
The form of government proposed in the theory outlined by John Locke is much less restrictive on the rights of the commonwealth than the theory described by Hobbes, while at the same time providing equal guarantees of protection. Therefore, society today would undoubtedly function best under the ideas of Locke given that we live in a world where freedom is not only expected, but demanded. The absence of freedom, as described by Hobbes, would only create greater struggles for power resulting in the transition of mankind back into the state of nature which we so wish to escape.
While Thomas Hobbes believed that all people were wicked only fighting for their own interests, John Locke believed that all people are born naturally good because they are born as empty slates which they learn experiences to fill it up instead of being outright evil.. John Locke’s philosophy supported the government of 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’s philosophy states 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 deluxe 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
He believed that if the government abuses their power then they have breached their social contract with their citizens and therefore no longer have the consent of the governed. While Hobbes may have believed in the absolutism for the sovereign, Locke believed that a monarchy should not wield limitless power and should be subject to restrictions. According to Locke, society is bound to comply to a sovereign as long as that sovereign does not disregard the social contract. Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that if a sovereign violates the social contract repeatedly, then society can replace said sovereign. While Hobbes believed that man by nature is brutish, Locke believed that man by nature is
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.
He believes that government is a tool that depends on the consent of the people, and it must not violate the people’s natural right to property (J. Thomas Wren, 2007). Locke states that God gave earth to the entire humanity and everyone has freedom to do whatever they wish without seeking anyone 's permission or depending on anyone else. Locke argues that reason teaches people not to harm their neighbour or their freedom or property, but people should be punished if they break the law (Bingxin Wu. Locke believes that no man should make decisions for another man, even when it comes to political leaders, he states that they should not impose their beliefs on the citizens. Locke and Hobbes differ on opinions when speaking about the right for the citizens to rebel against a corrupt state. Hobbes believes that the government 's existence is to control people and save people from themselves; therefore, people must not rebel against the government under any circumstances. On the other hand, Locke believes that the government’s duty is to the people, thus, if the government becomes corrupt, then people have the right to rebel and overthrow the
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
He created a book called, “Leviathan”. In this book Hobbes explained how the government should be like a monster, “Leviathan”. In the book “Leviathan”, He claimed because men are selfish and ignorant, words would mean nothing to them, he believed the government had to have consequences, and be backed by force because the bonds of words are too weak to control man’s ambitions and greed without the fear of some coercive power. The word leviathan means, “monster” and that is exactly what Hobbes said the government should be towards men in order to maintain them and order security. However, Jean Jacques Rousseau believed a government deserves to be obeyed only if its actions follow the general will. The general will means, “is the will of the people as a whole”. As fair as it sounds, I disagree that a government deserves to be obeyed only if its actions follow the general will. Hobbes was saying is the government should be like a guidance for men, to show them the right path. If the system was to work under the general will, then the government wouldn’t be able to guide us much. An example of this would be is if we ran under the general will and the country wants no consequences for doing bad stuff such as; stealing, killings and etc. The country wouldn’t be steered the right path. That is why I believe Thomas Hobbes see’s stuff in a unique way he believes there should be a government formed and the government should be backed by force; he believed they should be a leviathan because the bonds of words are too weak to control man’s ambitions and greed without the fear of some coercive
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are two well-known philosophers who discussed and developed the social contract theory on the principle of “natural law”. Hobbes believed that men should be strongly governed because they cannot look after themselves. As of human nature he believed that society could not exist except by the power of the state. He was convinced that all humans were naturally selfish and wicked. Without government to keep order Hobbes said, there would be "war of every man against every man," and life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." So for none of that to happen he supposed that people had to hand over their rights to a strong ruler.