Humans have lived in a world of political governance where law and order is distributed and administered upon us for hundreds of years, and if we were ever caught disobeying the law we would be punished. Social and political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke referred to this authority as the state, and in their separate accounts wished not to argue whether humans have lived in a state of nature (without a state), but that whether it is possible and what it would be like. In general, the state of nature is a hypothetical state that existed prior to the development of societies, or humans in a more contemporary state. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes roughly originate from the same era (mid 1600’s), however their views and arguments with regards to the state of nature differ greatly. In this paper, I will compare and contrast differences in the …show more content…
Hobbes has a more pessimistic conception of the state of nature, whereas Locke believed humans living in a state of nature could be relatively peaceful and have many benefits, this is the first and most notable difference in their versions. The extremity of Hobbes’ state of nature is characterized as a state of war. He proclaimed that life within the State of Nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan, 186), because of three main principles: equality, scarcity, and uncertainty. Equality means that all people are roughly equal in power, and those who suffer a weakness in one respect can make up for it in another. However, we are all equal with respect to our pursuit of resources and those resources are scarce, so people will do whatever it takes to get those resources for themselves. Since resources are limited we are in a constant state of
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.
Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature. Even though they both believed that men naturally have to some extent equality and freedom, what makes their concepts different is the presence or absence of the natural law. In Hobbes' theory, men in their natural state are at constant war, the war of all against all. Another Hobbes belief is that most people are selfish and tend to do everything for their own reason. To Hobbes humans are driven to maximize personal gains so in a world where there are no rules humans are in constant fear of each other as they each try to get as much as they can, enough is never enough.
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
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.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...
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...
necessary to lay down this right to all things, and be contented with so much
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?
Theories of human nature, as the term would ever so subtly suggest, are at best only individual assertions of the fundamental and intrinsic compositions of mankind, and should be taken as such. Indeed it can be said that these assertions are both many and widespread, and yet too it can be said that there are a select few assertions of the nature of man that rise above others when measured by historical persistence, renown, and overall applicability. These eclectic discourses on the true nature of man have often figured largely in theories of political science, typically functioning as foundational structures to broader claims and arguments. The diversification of these ideological assertions, then, would explain the existence of varying theories
In this essay, I will present three reasons as to why the absolute authority of the sovereign in Hobbes’s state of nature and social contract is justified. The three reasons Hobbes uses are: the argument from contract, the argument from authorisation and the argument from weakness of mixed or divided sovereignty. Firstly, I shall explain Hobbes’s understanding of human nature and the natural condition of humanity which causes the emergence of the social contract. I shall then analyse each argument for the absolute authority of the sovereign being justified. I shall then consider possible objections to Hobbes’s argument. I shall then show why Hobbes’s argument is successful and the absolute authority of the sovereign is justified.
Another idea similar to that of Hobbes and Locke later appears in Chapter 17 of Hobbes’s “Of Commonwealth”. Throughout his entire book, Hobbes makes it very clear that the state of nature is a state of war and is something that must be avoided at all costs; this idea also ties in with Locke. Hobbes states that if the government is not protecting the mass society the way it needs to be then laws may be broken, in other words, society goes back to the state of nature (Hobbes
Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.
Each political theorist agrees that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature. The state of nature is the condition men were in before political government came into existence, and what society would be if there was no government. In relation to this the two theorists raised as much praise as criticism for their famous masterpieces.
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.
A state of nature is a hypothetical state of being within a society that defines such a way that particular community behaves within itself. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes proclaimed that, “A state of nature is a state of war.” By this, Hobbes means that every human being, given the absence of government or a contract between other members of a society, would act in a war-like state in which each man would be motivated by desires derived solely with the intention of maximizing his own utility.
In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.