Compare And Contrast Locke And Rousseau And The State Of Nature

762 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: compare and contrast theories of hobbes and locke

Throughout both Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and Hobbes Leviathan, they refer to the state of nature. Although these two views of the state of nature vary, they share similar tendencies. However, when these two views of the state of nature are compared to the view of Rousseau and his view of the state of nature, they tend to be more persuasive because of their similarities.
When you compare the view of Locke and Hobbes, we see that Hobbes views the state of nature as the human condition without government. He claims that human nature would be savage without a ruling body and that the reason for entering a state is selfishness fear for your life. Individuals agree to be moral and not harm others, with the understanding that the
In this state, all people are equal and independent. He claims that the state was formed by social contact because in the state of nature each was his own judge and there was no protection against those who lives outside of the state of nature and should be guided by natural law. Locke is essentially saying his writing, that government is morally obliged to serve people, mainly by protecting life, liberty, and property. He explained that when government violates individual rights, people have the legitimate right to rebel. Many of Locke’s theories are based on assumptions. On major one is the system of morality that exists within Locke’s state of nature. No one can guarantee an individuals reaction to respecting another person’s property in the state of nature.
Overall, if you compare both views of Locke and Hobbes, you seem many similarities, but also many differences. However, the main argument between Hobbes and Locke would be the purpose of the commonwealth. In the Leviathan, Hobbes argues that the establishment of a commonwealth through social contract best achieves peace and social unity. He goes on to explain that the ideal commonwealth is ruled by a sovereign power, responsible for protecting the security of the commonwealth and given absolute authority to see that public is

Show More
Related

  • Hobbes and Locke: Comparing and Contrasting Political Philosophies

    1747 Words  | 4 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are comparable in their basic political ideologies about man and their rights in the state of nature before they enter a civil society. Their political ideas are very much similar in that regard. The resemblance between Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies are based on a few characteristics of the state of nature and the state of man. Firstly, in the state of nature both Hobbes and Locke agree that all men are created equal, but their definitions of equality in the state of nature slightly differ. According to Locke, “…in the state of nature… no one has power over another…” Locke’s version or idea of equality in the state of nature is based around the equality of authority and control. Each man has the authority to judge and punish themselves, but they do not have “…license to abuse others…” On the other hand, Hobbes’ definition of equality is based around the equality of man physically and mentally because “Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of the body and mind…” Nevertheless, the natural equality in both Hobbes and Locke’s states of nature contribute to man’s urge and want to join a civil society.

    Read More

  • The Influence of Locke and Hobbes on Government

    1741 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Theory Of Government

    1064 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Jefferson and Locke

    898 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Locke’s essay, Book II called Second Treatise he explains his philosophical approach to the state of nature and how men are bound to a social contract giving consent to the government to protect their unalienable rights.

    Read More

  • Hobbes And John Locke Comparison Essay

    890 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had some similarities in their beliefs about human nature. They both claimed that humans would always be willing to give up some of their freedom or rights to have security and feel safe. When John Locke says “The enjoyment of rights in the state of nature is unsafe and insecure. Hence, each man joins in society with others to preserve life, liberty, and property.” it is showing that he thinks the state of nature is unsafe, so people give

    Read More

  • Equality: Comparing Hobbes and Locke

    2000 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed. This is because doing so would create a state of war in and of itself.

    Read More

  • Absolute Power: A State of War Against Its People

    1132 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Political Science Final Exam

    758 Words  | 2 Pages

    2. What is the difference between Hobbes’ and Locke’s conception of the state of nature, and how does it affect each theorist’s version of the social contract?

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Rousseau, The State of Nature

    1256 Words  | 3 Pages

    Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different even opposing views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role on their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things is far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure. Hobbes’s initial argument of natural state, in human nature, proves how society is in a constant state of destruction, mentally and physically, if not under controlled or command. Although Hobbes’s opinion was morally correct, Rousseau believes that all people are born in a state of emptiness, somewhat of a blank state and it is life experiences that determine their nature, society being a major driving force for people’s ill-will and lack of moral sensibilities. Hobbes, overall, is proven correct because all people need to be directed in order for society to properly function.

    Read More

  • Force, Morality and Rights in Thomas Hobbes and John Locke's Social Contract Theories

    1630 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government

    3013 Words  | 7 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of John Locke: The Second Treatise Of Government

    2379 Words  | 5 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Similarities Between Hobbes Locke And Rousseau

    560 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hobbes believes that if there is no government then it will lead to a state of war. This is because the people can have different judgement which cause them to not have an agreement on what the government should contain. This means that the people did not view each other as equal and did not have the same morals as Locke would believe in. It can also lead to a state of war if the people don’t have the right to property since it will cause the peace to break. However, the only type of state Hobbes believes in is the Leviathan state that has only one

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes And Locke's Theory Of Government

    1460 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hobbes and Locke’s Ideas of government reflects subjects that have been put in place, rejected many times, or are still in consideration. The idea to allow the government to have access to our text messages, our emails, and our phone calls to prevent crime and terrorism would be an example of Hobbes idea of government as having an absolute ruler with unlimited power would do whatever is necessary to prevent chaos. But in todays society Locke’s idea of government has been favored as the government would only be able to do that with a warrant and reason for the warrant, to protect our natural rights. Locke’s idea of government reflects our police department regulations also; to protect our natural rights police have limited power, as they cannot do whatever they feel necessary to prevent crime. But if the police department was reflected by Hobbes idea of government the police could do whatever they felt necessary, which in today’s society could actually cause more chaos, then prevent

    Read More

More about Compare And Contrast Locke And Rousseau And The State Of Nature

Open Document