Hobbes and Locke both present states of nature in which the human race exists prior to, or without the formation of civil society. These states of nature present stark differences between one other that emphasize the different views the two author’s have on the natural human state. The states of nature each give rise to their own distinct and separate reasons for forming a civil society and, consequently, giving up rights in order to form a civil society. I will begin my essay by presenting both Locke’s and Hobbes’ state of nature and outlining their differences. Then I will analyze the ways in which Hobbes’ state of nature may be seen as more plausible, as well as considering some possible objections to Hobbes’ view. Next I will examine Locke’s view and why it may be considered more plausible in addition to looking at some arguments against it. In this paper I intend to argue that Hobbes’ state of nature makes the acceptance of a civil society more plausible, but that Locke’s state of nature presents more plausibility in commonly held views or intuitions people may hold today. Hobbes’ state of nature sees men as equal to each other in regards to strength. That is, the faculties of man were created equally so that where one man may be physically stronger than another, the other man still has the opportunity to overcome his opponent …show more content…
Hobbes’ state of nature depicts the life of man as “nasty, brutish, and short” (31) and does not allow for innate morality, which for some may be seen as problematic for Hobbes’ theory. Locke’s state of nature seems to be more accessible as it presents a more dynamic picture of human nature. Moreover, it allows for an innate sense of morality within human beings that does not simply arise out of the formation of a
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.
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
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
His first assumption is that people are physically and mentally similar to one another, and this similarity means that “no individual has the capacity to overpower or influence another” (Hobbes). A flaw, however, that I realize in this assertion is that there do exist in society persons of deficient physical and mental ability. For example, people with severe physical or mental handicaps would not fare well in Hobbes’ state of nature because they would be easily dominated. Hobbes’ second assumption is that people generally want to protect their own lives, “shun[ning] death” (Hobbes). This proclivity for self-preservation does not translate to an innate malevolent nature of humans; however, it does imply that humans tend to be more indifferent towards each other than benevolent. I tend to agree with this second assumption because in my experience, individuals think of themselves in an elevated manner, and if someone does not agree with this view, the individual becomes offended. Individuals tend to judge others based on swift observations, dismissing others if they do not align with one’s personal preferences. The final assumption Hobbes asserts is that individuals have a penchant for religion. This penchant stems from the curious and anxious nature of individuals. Hobbes thinks that these aspects of human nature cause individuals to “seek out religious beliefs” (Hobbes) in order to quell the curiosity and anxiety that dominates their lives. In addition to these various normative assumptions regarding the state of nature, Hobbes outlines the right of nature, which is “a liberty right to preserve the individual in the state of nature” (Hobbes). In essence, this
We will give Hobbes’ view of human nature as he describes it in Chapter 13 of Leviathan. We will then give an argument for placing a clarifying layer above the Hobbesian view in order to account for acts of altruism. 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.”
Self-preservation is an important factor in shaping the ideologies of Hobbes and Locke as it ties in to scarcity of resources and how each of them view man’s sate of nature. Hobbes and Locke both believe in self-preservation but how each of them get there is very different. Hobbes believes that man’s state of nature is a constant state of war because of his need to self-preserve. He believes that because of scarcity of goods, man will be forced into competition, and eventually will take what is others because of competition, greed, and his belief of scarce goods. Hobbes also states that glory attributes to man’s state of nature being a constant state of war because that drives man to go after another human or his property, on the one reason of obtaining glory even if they have enough to self preserve. Equality ties in with Hobbes view of man being driven by competition and glory because he believes that because man is equal in terms of physical and mental strength, this give them an equal cha...
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.
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?
At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...
Hobbes’ theory on the condition of the state of nature, and government are not only more applicable today but his reasoning is far sounder than that of Rousseau. These concepts were significantly conditionally reliant. What Hobbes imagined was not a pre-societal period, rather he ...
Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau were both influential philosophers with two completely different theories about the nature of human beings. While Hobbes’s’ theory was based upon the assumption that human nature was naturally born competitive, violent, and seeking power, Rousseau viewed human nature as good and pure, only until society corrupts it. Although Hobbes and Rousseau both viewed the state of nature quite differently, both their theories were similarly based on the image of how society was, before political government existed. The argument I would like to make is the idea that Hobbes’s vision and beliefs of human nature from the State of Nature is profoundly more logical and realistic than Rousseau’s. To be human is to desire nothing but accomplishing ones own selfish pleasures, including their interest in self-preservation.
Hobbes and Rousseau created a revolutionary idea of the state of nature. They did not believe government should be organized through the church, therefore abandoning the idea of the divine right theory, where power of the king came directly from God. Starting from a clean slate, with no organized church, Hobbes and Rousseau needed a construct on what to build society on. The foundation of society began with the original state of nature. Hobbes’ perception of the original state of nature is what would exist if there were no common power to execute and enforce the laws to restrain individuals. In this case, the laws of the jungle would prevail: only the fittest survive. Man’s desires are insatiable. Since resources are scarce, humankind is naturally competitive, inevitably creating jealousy and hatred, which eventually leads to war.
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.
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.
Thomas Hobbes writes in his work, Leviathan, “Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind.” However that claim comes with a catch. He believes that we all have different strengths and weaknesses but when we weigh the pros and cons of each person up against the other there is really a balance. This is one aspect of his argument