Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two different but very similar people.
They both were philosophers during the seventeenth century. The two men had different opinions about man but both talked about the structure of government, natural law, and the characteristics of the state of nature. Locke believed when man was born he was empty and could turn out to be good or bad. While Hobbes believed man was born evil and greedy. Thomas Hobbes was born in England on April 5, 1588. Hobbes's father was a clergyman, and Hobbes was educated in the classics at Oxford University. He traveled to meet writers, philosophers, and scientists of other European countries. He also traveled to study different forms of government. In 1652 Hobbes wrote his most famous
Carl Schmitt gets deep down in the differences between John Locke and Thomas Hobbes in “The Problem of Sovereignty”. This is where Schmitt brings up his decisionist theory and places Locke
Hobbes is more conservative in the modern term because his whole political philosophy is based around keeping stability in the commonwealth. This stability can only happen with a strong traditional monarchy that holds absolute power even with religion. Hobbes is very averse to the division power and change in tradition because he saw firsthand what it did to England in the English Civil War. He also advocates censorship and unquestioning obedience to the sovereign. Locke is more politically liberal because most of his philosophy is based on how the government and society can preserve liberty and equality. The people have are the sovereign according to Locke and if the majority so chose they can change the legislature. He is more liberal because he advocates that the government’s purpose is to preserve not only liberty, but also private property and natural rights.
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/)
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. Locke drew his ideas from a time where Hobbes did not have the chance to observe the, glorious revolution. In uncivilized times, in times before government, Hobbes asserted the existence of continual war with "every man, against every man." On this point, Locke and Hobbes were not in agreement. Locke, consistent with his philosophy, viewed man as naturally moral.
Locke expressed the ideal that men are created equal and nevertheless men will flourish with independence and freedom, “no one having more than another” (Locke 101). In this way, Locke believes that an individual should have the capability to find happiness through equality and human freedoms. Even with these naturally positive and good qualities, Locke believes that there are potential for bad tendencies within man. With this possibility for negative attributes, a government is essential to protect them from themselves and to guarantee that equality will prosper. He introduces the main ideas that govern a community, “Life, Liberty and Property” (Locke 101). These are the freedoms that every individual within the community should have, and the government should follow these rights because mankind is naturally good. Hobbes opposes this view and believes that men are naturally immoral and base actions on personal desires rather than the greater good. Hobbes expresses, “So that in the nature of man we find three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (Hobbes 99). These three principles are the reasons for confrontation, and they are also inevitable. Men act on their desires for wealth and power and also create enemies. In his work Leviathan Hobbes explains that “from [man’s] equality of ability arises equality of hope in the attaining of
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.
Locke and Marx put their trust in human reason while Machiavelli does not. These authors’ assumptions and different conceptions of human nature determine and lead to each of their conclusions regarding human nature. This paper will argue that Locke views human nature in a positive manner where humans are rational and reasonable. This paper will also argue that Marx denies the existence of human nature and instead concludes that social relations and society ultimately defines humans. Finally, this paper will argue that Machiavelli, unlike the other authors, has a negative understanding of humans as he thinks that man is selfish and that an individual should not be given too much power as they only act upon their own self-interest.
Thomas Hobbes was born in Westport now part of Malmesbury in Wiltshire on April 5, 1588. He was born prematurely at the time when England was filled with rumors of the Spanish Armada. He would compare himself to fear so he would characterize himself with peace. He was named after his father whose name was also Thomas Hobbes. When Thomas Hobbes was very young his father caused a scandal by engaging in a brawl at the door of his church and as a result was forced to flee. Thomas, his brother, and his sister were raised up by the elder brother Francis Hobbes which was known to be a prosperous glover and alderman. Hobbes was well educated by his uncles at churches and private schools. When he was fifteen he went to Magdalen Hall in Oxford but he took little interest in the logic and scholastic philosophy, which formed the bulk of the curriculum.
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.
Essay I agree with Document B… Locke, because he basically believes about the government begin by nature and everyone. He said “it teaches all mankind of being equal and independent”. “No one should harm another’s life, health, liberty or professions”. I also agree with having independence and freedom without harm. Naturally with freedom and have your own opinion. Well disagreeing with another basically telling your opinion of State of Nature. Not depending on one another but more of nature. Hobbes believes that everyone is selfish and just terrible but Locke believes of independence and believes we shouldn’t spoil anything God has created of this world also with Political powers. He speaks about opinions are okay and are spoken freely. Living
John Locke, one of the most influential philosophers of his time, was born on August 29, 1632 in Wrington, a small village in England. His father, also named John, had been a lawyer as well as a military man who once served as a captain in the parliamentary army during the English civil war. Locke’s parents were both very devout Puritans and so to no surprise, Locke himself was raised with heavily Puritan beliefs. Because Locke’s father had many connections to the English government at the time of his growing up, John was given a rare gift at that time, an outstanding education.
In his article, Now That’s Rich, Paul Krugman discusses the state of the wealthy in America. He provides a critical account of the work ethic of the 1 percent, asserting that many of the country’s wealthy do not work in proportion to the money they have. He states, “The goal of [promoting the rise in college graduates] is to soften the picture, to make it seem as if we’re talking about ordinary white-collar professionals who get ahead through education and hard work. But many Americans are well-educated and work hard…Yet they don’t get the big bucks.” This claim illustrates a disparity in the economic system: hard work does not equate financial success. Krugman expands on this by explaining that wealth acquired by this group of people was only achieved because money they inherited. “These days a lot of top money managers’ income comes not from investing other people’s money but from returns on their own accumulated wealth—that is, the reason they make so much is the fact that they’re already very rich.” Krugman demonstrates a cyclical pattern of accumulated wealth, leaving no room for individuals of lower means to reach this status. Moreover, the advantage of the rich leads to a society that is “dominated by wealth,” and increases the gap between the rich and every one else. Krugman ultimately points out the hypocrisy of the rich’s resistance to increased taxes and asks his readers to think critically about how the rich arrived where they are.
In his Second Treatise of Government, Locke proposes an idealized state of nature in which men are self-sufficient and content. The implications of his idealized population lead him to derive the existence of government from its own theoretical roots: Locke proposes government as a naturally occurring consequence of his state of nature. This derivation is founded on the injustice of man in his natural state: it is the imperfections found in the state of nature that necessitate government. This paper aims to show why the inequality caused by the existence of a market economy is an intentional and necessary path from Locke’s state of nature to the existence of the commonwealth. It will first argue that unequal possession is an inevitable consequence of property as defined by Locke. It will then show why this inequality is a necessary transition out of the state of nature for mankind. It will finally argue that each man’s consent to currency, and the injustice it brings, is the foundation for the overall consent to the commonwealth. The existence of inequality is naturally introduced and maintained throughout Locke’s argument. Hobbes successfully defends that economic inequality is both a natural and crucial part of political society; both the inequality of human ability and the resulting economic inequality precede the existence of an ideal state.
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.
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