The philosopher of England Thomas Hobbes, which begun his philosophy in the 17th century, started out with the philosophy of political science while on his trips and visits neighboring countries outside of England to listen to other scientists discuss and learn about different forms of government. While studying, Thomas Hobbes wondered about why people allow themselves to become ruled by the government and would be the ideal form of government best for England. He answered that questioned by stating that since people were naturally wicked and shouldn’t become trusted to govern themselves because they were selfish creatures and would do anything to better their position and social status, it would be best to have an absolute monarchy, which …show more content…
According to Thomas Hobbes, the reason that this is the case is because people are selfish and evil and that they must protect their interests well by using certain tactics to make sure other people devastate their needs and wants.Also, without a leader, these people would be very chaotic and attack one another of many things when there isn’t any government in charge.
Thomas Hobbes also didn 't support the idea of democracy where the citizens’ are allowed to vote for their government leaders. Due to his idea that people are only trying
…show more content…
While Thomas Hobbes believed that all people were wicked only fighting for their own interests, John Locke believed that all people are born naturally good because they are born as empty slates which they learn experiences to fill it up instead of being outright evil.. John Locke’s philosophy supported the government of democracy because if a government is like an absolute monarch, it won’t satisfy all the needs of the people and this is why the people have a right to revolt against an abusive government as proven in the American Revolutionary War with King George III or the French Revolutionary War with King Louis XVI who didn 't support their citizen’s ideas and goals. Thomas Hobbes’s philosophy states that people couldn 't be trusted because they would only fight for their own interests, so an absolute monarch would demand obedience to maintain order, but John Locke states that people can be trusted since all people are naturally deluxe but depending on our experiences as they can still govern themselves. The Purpose of the government, according to John Locke is to protect the individual liberties and rights instead of just keeping law and order because with law and order being put strictly, the people would rebel because it didn’t represent them and then the country will
Thomas Hobbes believes that the optimal form of authority is one that has absolute power over its people, consisting of just one person who will retain the exclusive ability to oversee and decide on all of society’s issues. This Sovereign will be constituted by a social contract with the people. With that, the Sovereign will hold all of the citizens’ rights, and will be permitted to act in whichever way he or she deems necessary. The philosopher comes to this conclusion with deductive reasoning, utilizing a scientific method with straightforward arguments to prove his point.
Lockes and Hobbes ideas of government differed greatly, Hobbes believed in an absolute government while Locke believed in a very limited one.Locke believed that people were naturally good and trustful and that they had the capacity to govern themselves. So the need of the government only came in the form of stopping any potential disputes that would occur. While Hobbes believed that humans were not all that good and their need for government stemmed from the fact that people cannot govern themselves. Furthermore Locke believed that the governments role was to listen to the people it was governing, a rule by consent. While Hobbes believed that the Government was to rule on it’s own and owed no answers or consent by the people. Moreover Locke believed that the purpose of the government was to protect the property and freedom of its people, while Hobbes believed that the governments role was to tell them what to do. But arguably the biggest difference between the philosophies is the notion of government accountability. Hobbes believed that the government had free reign to do what they please with no backlash, while Locke believed that if the social contract was broken then the people of the community had the right to revolt and over throw the government. To further this point Locke unlike Hobbes believed that leaders should
Thomas Hobbes was a philosopher during The Enlightenment whose philosophy laid the foundation for the democratic theory. The Enlightenment was a period of time from the 1620’s to the 1780’s that provided an emphasis on individualism rather than the traditional path of authority. The Enlightenment came about during the Scientific Revolution. It was the Scientific Revolution that began to change the way people and scientist looked at the physical world around them. Scientist began to question the traditional scientific beliefs, similarly to the way the philosophers began to challenge the traditional social and governmental beliefs. Hobbes himself, believed more in absolutism, the belief that the power should be given to one person.
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.
Hobbes, an aristocrat who lived through the English civil war, had to flee England, watch his monarch’s execution, and observes the violence of human nature at its very worst. Given this experience, his central concern was the need for absolute power to maintain peace and prevent another civil war. On the other hand, John Locke lived and wrote forty years later, after the Glorious Revolution. His ideas developed in the context of a period in which individual’s rights and power were emphasized. He believed that individuals needed freedom from control to reach their full potential. Hobbes became an advocate for absolutism--the belief that because humans are naturally power seeking, a sovereign is needed to maintain peace, and the individual must completely submit to that power. In contrast, Locke advocated constitutionalism, the belief that all individuals have inherit rights, government should be based on consensus, and citizens must fight for their liberty in the face of an overpowering government. These philosophers and their ideas outlined the debate about where power should lie in society–with the individual or with the state.
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.
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. This is because doing so would create a state of war in and of itself.
Hobbes argues for this form of government as a solution to the crises of all men being equal and them having the right to get justice when laws or rules are broken. He says that there should be a social contract putting trust into one person to take care of all the good and bad that people do. It is not a right that puts someone into power, but a contract with the people so that they can change who is in charge if they feel that, that person is not getting the justice that is needed and allowing bad stuff to continue to happen. Hobbes also argues that this form of government was needed to overcome the defects of human nature, his case was made by referring to science rather than religion to support this form of
In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern
However, I believe the concepts Hobbes maintains are of a more ideal, and proper functioning society. First, he indicates that having a higher power in place eliminates the threat of violence amongst society, and enhances peace amongst people (Hobbes [1651] 2013). Through the achievement of a sovereign, society will avoid reverting back to a state of chaos. Secondly, he presents the idea of a democratic government, in which members of the state make a unified decision on who represents them(Hobbes [1651] 2013). This method of government is still present, and highly effective to this day. It allows individuals who are in power
He started out on with philosophy of political science while on his trips and visits to other countries outside of England to listen to other scientists and learn different forms of government. While studying, Thomas Hobbes wondered about why people were allowing themselves to be ruled and what would a great form of government for England. He reasoned that people were naturally wicked and shouldn’t be trusted to govern themselves because they were selfish creatures and would do anything to better their position and social status. These people, when left alone will go back to their evil impulses to get a better advantage over others. So Thomas Hobbes concluded that the best form of government would an absolute monarchy, which is a government
Thomas Hobbes is frequently credited as being a forefather to modern liberalism. With his beliefs on individualism, along with his agreeance and acceptance of intellectual and moral autonomy it is easy to understand why many modern liberals would agree with Hobbes’s political philosophy. However, Thomas Hobbes does not support the concept of a democratic government, rather he supported the notion of a absolutist government up until his death. Special attention must be given to Hobbes’s denial that autonomy can be thought of, or conceived as, a form of self-government. It is important to take note that Hobbes’s argument against democracy is significantly more exhaustive than merely autonomy. Hobbes believes that democracy cannot work as a form of government due to numerous reasons, three of which will be the focus of this paper. Initially, we will lay a foundation to demonstrate how democracy is not equal to other forms of government, rather it acts more like a launch point for other, more preferable, types of government regimes. Secondly, we will demonstration that democracy reproduces the instability and despair that is accustom with, and found in, the state of nature, which is contradictory to the entire idea of a sovereign. And finally we will establish that while Hobbes consents to and also protects intellectual and moral autonomy, the notion of autonomy, in its political form, as self-government (which may be taken to imply democracy), cannot work because of its contradictory nature. This is a result of the notion, that government, for Hobbes, is responsible for the creation and subsequent enforcement of the laws. Hence, these reasons put forth by Hobbes, in addition to the arguments that will be made against ...
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
Thomas Hobbes was a proponent of the monarchal system and in this paper I will prove that Hobbes was right in supporting the monarchal system of government, I will also show the opposing school of thought, and finally, I will give you my opinion on the monarchal system. Thomas Hobbes lived from 1588-1679 and throughout most of his life there was violence going on all around him. The biggest case was the English Civil War. This war lasted about seven years and it overthrew the monarchy, which England had established many years before. After this revolution, shaky governments ruled the land for several years. But then, the English went back to the monarchal system. These times shaped Hobbes’ views and his way of thought. Hobbes became a backer of the monarchal system and expressed his thoughts through his book, Leviathan. He had several reasons that supported his zeal for monarchy. The first of which is the monarch that would be in place would look out for his people and not only for himself. Hobbes starts out by saying that if there is a thoughtful and giving monarch, he would try to encourage his people to work as hard as they possibly could. For example, if the people had to pay taxes of 10% of their total income, then the king would also get 10% of that. If the king were intelligent, he would encourage the people to work harder. This would not only increase their own personal wealth, but also that of the king’s. This may seem a bit conniving because the king is coming out of it with more money because 10% of a larger amount of total income will mean more money for the king, but the monarch is, in actuality, making lives better for the people. “Now in monarchy the private interest is th...
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.