In today’s society we are split mainly between two political parties, the democrats and the republicans. In 17th century England the two prevailing view points were the writings by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Much like the republican and democratic parties, Hobbes and Locke had two different view points. Two things they disagreed on were the state of nature and the social contract. The state of nature is a representation of humans before being in a society. Hobbes and Locke had different views on what the state of nature was. Locke describes his version of state of nature in his second treatise of government. “a state of perfect freedom” (pg244) Locke believed in the natural law, that because you are a child of God you know the difference …show more content…
Locke’s version of a social contract states that society and government are bound in a social contract that maintains a balanced system of life. In Locke’s social contact society must follow the rules of the governing sovereign, as long as the governing sovereign doesn't stray away from the original contract. If the sovereign repeatedly violates the original contract the society has the right to replace that particular form of governance. In Hobbes’ version of a social contract was when an individual agreed to give their liberty into the hands of a sovereign, on the condition that their lives were safeguarded by sovereign power. Unlike in Locke’s social contract, in Hobbes’ you can’t replace the governing sovereign. Hobbes is in favor of a more absolute power while Locke leans towards a limited power. When it comes to the state of nature I believe that Hobbes is right. People might know what is morally right, but that doesn’t mean they will make the right decision every time. When they don’t make the right decision is when it will go into war. I agree with Locke’s social contract theory. If the governing sovereign isn’t being true to the contract, the society should have the right to replace
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.
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.
...at should the people do? With Rebellion against the Government that is abusive to the people. Hobbes mentions because people had no say in their Government, they could do nothing if the monarch were abusive. But Locke the people had the right to revolt against an abusive government. With both of these views we see one side saying that people should revolt if they feel like there rights are violated while the other side thinks more on the lines that people shouldn’t do anything because you rights are decide by the government. But could people be trusted to govern themselves? Hobbes said No, people could be trusted to govern themselves and an absolute monarch would demand obedience in to maintain order. But Locke says yes, people could be trusted to govern themselves, he believed that if provided with the right information would make good decisions should be fine.
In conclusion, both Hobbes and Locke theories were influential in politics. They both examined the “state of nature” of man without any government and that in this state that all men are equal. They also both believed that this created risk. Hobbes has a much more pessimistic view than Locke. (http://lifeexaminations.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/comparing-and-contrasting-locke-and-hobbes-state-of-nature/)
Hobbes' theory is a pessimistic look at human being and the way they act around each other but Locke's theory suggests that people are more easy-going and peaceful towards each other. Hobbes point of view on human nature and how a government should be run is a more realistic way of looking at things than John Locke?s theory though. Both Hobbes and Locke see human nature differently, Hobbes sees people as being run by selfishness whereas Locke says that people are naturally kind. As we see in the news daily, people are often cruel and inhumane, and we also see kinder people in everyday life. We see people who give up their own personal pleasure so they can serve others. But these people are far and few between, it becomes quickly obvious that humans are drawn towards self-happiness.
Locke’s belief in “consent” by the people creates a democratic structure of community. In this way, the community is merely created to protect the rights and the property of the people. His idealistic government would have the power controlled by those who are being ruled, the people. Locke explains that we must “make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest” (Locke 101).The government is a reflection of the “majority” of the community, and will represent the wishes of the people. The power is held by those who are being ruled, and they have equal rights in deciding their political outcomes. Locke explains that “wherever law ends, tyranny begins”, so once the rights of the people are suppressed this injustice begins (Locke 102). Locke also explains that if a government was to act unjust, not with the best interest of the majority, then it is the right and the responsibility of the people to overthrow “tyranny” (Locke 102). The people, who have the power, should always defend their human rights, especially from unlawful rulers. This view of government shifts with Hobbes’ perspective. Hobbes believes that one man should rule the community, and therefore the government should have power in the ruler rather than the people being ruled. This single ruler will be educated about the corrupt nature of mankind and the bad nature of
Locke stated that people give up rights in return for benefits and the right to life, liberty, and protection of property. However Hobbes was more harsh and said that as long as you mind your own business and don’t get in the way then you won’t be harmed. John Locke’s beliefs are more apparent in today’s world because of the role of democracy in America and our lives, freedom, and property are not being threatened unless you aren’t fulfilling your role in society. The ideas of Thomas Hobbes show in a government such as a monarchy or a dictatorship which aren’t accepted in modern times. People want to feel safe and when you can’t completely control whether or not you or your possessions are harmed citizens will revolt and change to a different more stable government that works for
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.
One of the most important foundations of Hobbes political philosophy is his reasoning for the importance of government. Hobbes argues that without the presence of government human life would be unbearable, in fact he even goes as far as to say that without government we would live a life of everlasting war with one another. In this paper I will support Hobbes’ claims as to why government is vital, I will also compare Hobbes’ description of the state of nature to the state of the world today.
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, Hobbes’ Leviathan refers to people as subject rather than as citizens, indicating an absence of a reciprocal relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Absolute arbitrary government invests all rights in the sovereign.
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.
In Locke’s book the Second Treatise on Civil Government, he begins by describing the state of nature as a place where men exist in perfect freedom where they are able to pursue their own goals, as long as they do not infringe on the equal liberty of others (II. 4-7). This limitation differentiates Locke from Hobbes. Hobbes argued that freedom and equality and the importance of individual rights, allowed individuals in the state of nature to pursue their survival and interest without limitation (Leviathan, XII, p. 80). They had no duty to respect the rights of others. This is why the state of nature, for Hobbes, was a state of war (Leviathan, XII, p. 79). Whereas Locke believed that individual...
Fundamentally, Aristotle’s and Hobbes’s principles represent two contradictory interpretations of the philosophy of human nature and why men gather and constitute government. For Aristotle, man is naturally a social and political animal, structured toward living in a community; whereas for Hobbes, it is natural for man to live for himself, and the state is an artificially created concept to prevent war. In the following essay, I will argue that Hobbes’s claim that the state of nature is a state
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
These differences affect the livelihood and happiness of people. Hobbes wanted a government to prevent chaos and anarchy as he saw all men were selfish after his experience with the Civil War, while Locke wanted a government to protect everyone’s natural rights. Hobbes Monarch with an absolute ruler, Is different than Locke’s idea of a constitutional government. Hobbes absolute ruler theory forced people to behave themselves, and protected them from killing each other, Locke’s constitutional theory protected their lives, their liberty, and their property. These are different because, while Locke agrees with protecting peoples lives such as Hobbes did, he also believed more than just lives should be protected. Another difference between Hobbes and Locke was their belief if power should be limited. Since Hobbes believed in an absolute ruler, and his idea of government formed a Monarchy, the people were to give up their sovereignty for their own good to the absolute ruler. This gave the absolute ruler unlimited power, which prevented the people from over throwing him. While Locke’s idea of government, which was formed to aid the protection of peoples natural rights and not only to protect themselves from one another, limited the power of the government and gave people the right to over throw the government if they failed to protect their natural rights. Their