More handpicked essays just for you.
Differences between locke and hobbes
State of nature and hobbies essay
Comparison of the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
People often debate what the state of nature truly consists of. Some people think the state of nature is separate from the state of war, others believe the states are inseparable. One philosopher who discusses the two States is Thomas Hobbes, who asserts that the two states are inseparable, you cannot have one without the other. Within the state of nature, the state of war is inevitable. According to Hobbes, the state of nature causes us to enter into a state of war because of scarcity, conflict, distrust, and glory. Another philosopher who discusses the two states is a man named John Locke. Locke believes that the two states are separate. Similar to Hobbes, Lock believes that people have the right to preserve themselves in the state of nature. …show more content…
In the state of nature, everyone is equal. John Locke quotes
It is also a state of equality, in which no-one has more power and authority than anyone else; because it is simply obvious that creatures of the same species and status, all born to all the same advantages of nature and to the use of the same abilities, should also be equal ·in other ways·, with no-one being subjected to or subordinate to anyone else, unless ·God·, the lord and master of them all, were to declare clearly and explicitly his wish that some one person be raised above the others and given an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.
John Locke asserts that all men are equal and no one has power over another. According to John Locke everyone is born with the same capabilities. Someone only has authority over a person, if God bestowed that power onto them. Also in the state of nature, Locke asserts the law of reason is the law that governs over everyone. Reason is the law that teaches people that everyone is equal and no one should harm someone else’s liberty, life, or
…show more content…
The two reasons are reparation and restraint. Locke asserts “which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment.” Reparation is defined as the wronged party seeking punishment from the one who has wronged a person. The punishment has to be in the same magnitude of the crime. Restraint is defined as steps that are necessary in preventing someone from committing a crime. In the state of nature it is just to use force when these two reasons are prevalent. These two reasons of force do not cause people to enter into a state of war. However, when people use force unjustly, they abandon the state of nature and enter into state of
John Locke strongly believed in more rights for the people and was against oppression. In his book, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke stated, “(W)e must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose [manage] of their possessions. . .” (Document A). Locke means every man is naturally equal, no one was created better and he has certain guaranteed rights. This helps society because it would deny a monarch to strip a person of their guaranteed rights and it would make the monarch less powerful and his/her power would be given to the people.
John Locke was an English philosopher who lived during 1632-1704. In political theory he was equally influential. Contradicting Hobbes, Locke maintained that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance; all human beings were equal and free to pursue "life, health, liberty, and possessions." The state formed by the social contract was guided by the natural law, which guaranteed those inalienable rights. He set down the policy of checks and balances later followed in the U.S. Constitution; formulated the doctrine that revolution in some circumstances is not only a right but an obligation; and argued for broad religious freedom.
1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another. He makes a strong suggestion by saying, “that creatures of the same species and rank, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.” For people to confirm the state of Nature, a law is set that obliges people to follow and consult it. The Law of Nature brings many things that need to be followed by each person. Locke describes the law’s consequences if not obeyed by saying, “the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation.” Every law is fair and equal to every person. As you have equal rights, you may also be punished equally if you don’t obey it.
What John Locke was concerned about was the lack of limitations on the sovereign authority. During Locke’s time the world was surrounded by the monarch’s constitutional violations of liberty toward the end of the seventeenth century. He believed that people in their natural state enjoy certain natural, inalienable rights, particularly those to life, liberty and property. Locke described a kind of social contract whereby any number of people, who are able to abide by the majority rule, unanimously unite to affect their common purposes. The...
Hobbes, as one of the early political philosophers, believes human has the nature to acquire “power after power” and has three fundamental interests which are safety, “conjugal affections”, and riches for commodious lives. (Hobbes, p108, p191) From this basis, Hobbes deducts that in a state of nature, human tends to fight against each other (state of war) to secure more resources (Hobbes,
The state of war would likely occur if a civil government did not properly care for its citizens because it exists when there is conflict between citizens and “no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief. ”5 It is very likely that this could arise if a government did nothing to prevent conflict and was not invested in its citizens’ rights. Locke also has a stronger 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. Locke’s proposal for the proper behavior of a civil government distinguishes between the law and the lawmaker, and when a legislative body creates a law, the rules of the law itself are above it. Hobbes’ proposal does not differentiate between the lawmaker and the lawmaker because the lawmaker under his system of government would have complete control of the law.
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?
Locke believes that everyone is born as a blank slate. According to Locke there is no innate human nature but human nature is something we create. And because we are born as an equal blank slate all men have the opportunity to create human nature therefore Locke believed all men are created equal. Unlike Bentham Locke believed that government needed to take a step back and allow for each individual to have the right to three things: life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The Governments role should not be in dictating people what to do but to allow individuals to their three
The constant state of war is what Hobbes believes to be man’s original state of nature. According to Hobbes, man cannot be trusted in the state of nature. War among men is consequent and nothing can be unjust. Notions of justice and injustice or right and wrong will not hav...
In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective. John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man." (Ebenstein 373) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty, which has only the law of nature, or reason, to restrict it. (Ebenstein 374) However, Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as necessary for being free.
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.
The second law of nature is derived directly from the first. It insists that man lay down his right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men liberty against himself,” (Leviathan 1, 14). Essentially, in the state of nature, a man has a right to all things. By following this second law of nature, a man gives up certain rights in hopes that other men do the same in pursuit of peace with one another.
John Locke powerfully details the benefits of consent as a principle element of government, guaranteed by a social contract. Locke believes in the establishment of a social compact among people of a society that is unique in its ability to eliminate the state of nature. Locke feels the contract must end the state of nature agreeably because in the state of nature "every one has executive power of the law of nature"(742). This is a problem because men are then partial to their own cases and those of their friends and may become vindictive in punishments of enemies. Therefore, Locke maintains that a government must be established with the consent of all that will "restrain the partiality and violence of men"(744). People must agree to remove themselves from the punishing and judging processes and create impartiality in a government so that the true equality of men can be preserved. Without this unanimous consent to government as holder of executive power, men who attempt to establish absolute power will throw society into a state of war(745). The importance of freedom and security to man is the reason he gives consent to the government. He then protects himself from any one partial body from getting power over him.
...tainly possessed these qualities of life even with all is idiosyncrasies Locke believed we were all created equal that this was “self-evident”. Locke’s’ reason was to abide by the laws of God as well as the government. He thought that we should be mindful of how we treat ourselves and others at all times for as long as we live. . As a result of Locke’s views, he established “New liberties that would be enshrined in civil, social, and political rights”. (Biblical Politics pg. 95) “Although Locke’s new political order left individuals free from subjection to authority and helped overcome gender and similar barriers to personal and social advancement, this order also became problematic: a new-found emphasis on reason ultimately led to a disruption in the human spirit and to new forms of social isolation”.( Biblical Politics pg. 95-96)
Nature is freedom, it knows no boundaries. Bronislaw Malinowski wrote, "Freedom is a symbol which stands for a sublime and powerful ideal.” The state of nature is a term in political philosophy that describes a circumstance prior to the state and society's establishment. John Locke, whose work influenced the American Declaration of Independence, believes that the state of nature is the state where are individuals are completely equal, natural law regulates, and every human being has the executive power of the natural law. Nature is the very essence of freedom, and freedom is the essence of singularity. An Infinite and Unbound Singularity would require infinite and unbound degrees of freedom. Each individual mind represents an infinite degree of freedom separated by Nothing but its own Perspective. Just as there is Nothing that separates one spatial dimension from the other but the perspective view. The height, weight, and depth of our spatial dimensions are interchangeable, and are only defined by our current point of view. Rotate them by 90 or 180 degrees in any direction and one be...