Compare And Contrast John Locke And Thomas Hobbes

The argument referring to the nature of human beings and government is one that been debated for hundreds of years by many of the world’s greatest minds. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are two opposing philosophers who have devoted many years to studying this subject. For Locke, the state of nature— the original condition of all humanity before civilization and order was established—is one where man is born free, equal and have rights that others should respect, such as the right to live and the right to liberty. For Hobbes, however, the state of nature is one of constant war; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short ; it is, in Hobbes’ mind, civilization that separates humans from their primitive state. Hobbes believed that an individual’s only

Locke theorised that man was born with a clean slate, thus, they have the ability to make decisions that are either good or bad through that of rational thought as they were not born with any imprinted traits. Through this rational thought, they can come together to form a well-serving government based on consent.

When looking at human nature through the eyes of John Locke, right away one notes that his belief differs greatly from that of Hobbes as he shares a much more optimistic viewpoint. Locke believes that man is born with a clean slate, rather than the pre-conceived sentiment of evil and offers valuable insight into man that is not purely based on conflict. In contrast to Hobbes, Locke believes in a different state of man; that man should not harm one another, or do anything to stop one from achieving their goals in life. Through this, he views human nature as not to be self-serving or to be engaged in a battle against one another for each other’s possessions or resources, as resources are limited. It is better to share

The cornerstone of John Locke’s political theory stands on the basis of consent between the people and the ruling government, for without consent society reverts to a state of perpetual chaos much like the Egyptian Revolution of 2011. On January 25, 2011, the people of Egypt felt that Hosni Mubarak—the president of Egypt at the time—did not have the country’s best interests at heart and in a long overdue decision, decided to overthrow his regime. One could not say they did not see it coming as all the signs were there—police brutality, poverty and corruption were only a few of the many reasons behind the upheaval. The people wanted a democracy, for the government at the time did not maintain their natural rights; life, liberty and property. This goes in hand with John Locke’s belief that a rebellion will occur once a government infringes an individual’s rights. Locke said that “Men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this Estate, and subjected to the Political Power of another, without his own Consent.” In this case, Hosni Muburak lost the required consent once the residents of Egypt felt that they were experiencing a lifestyle riddled with infringed