Locke Vs Hobbes

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were two of the most well known enlightenment thinkers of the 17th century. They were made famous with their viewpoints on social contract and state of nature. Although they possessed contrasting viewpoints, they were both greatly influential in modern political society. Examples of their viewpoints on theories such as social contract and state of nature can be seen in today’s society, and even in fictional societies such as that of Panem in Suzanne Collin’s The Hunger Games. The ideas of each philosopher can be contrasted using examples from the dystopian society of Panem.

John Locke, one of the two philosophers, was born in 1632 in the UK. Locke, unlike Hobbes, Locke possessed a more optimistic view of human nature, thinking of man as a social animal. He believed that man is born not good or bad, but like a blank slate, and that “the society they grow up in influences their morality.” He believed all men

Unlike Locke, Hobbes had a much more dark perspective of human nature. He believed that “the natural state of man’s life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. He thought, unlike Locke, that man was not a social animal at all. Hobbes, like Locke, also believed that all men are born with rights. Although, instead of Locke’s belief that the government could not violate those rights, Hobbes believed that those rights should be given to the government in exchange from protection. He believed people needed this protection because of the “brutish” nature of human beings. Because of his negative viewpoint on human nature, he believed in an absolute monarchy to keep order. He thought this would be the only way to maintain order among the bad nature of humans. In this type of government, the people had no say whatsoever, and did not have a right to revolution, even if the government was abusive. Hobbes grim view of human nature is what led him to believe in a much more strict