Compare And Contrast Locke And Thomas Hobbes State Of Nature

The idea of the natural human is a topic discussed for centuries. Philosophers for generations asked question regarding the form of government that human beings react best in. In class we examined both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke's theory of the State of Nature which allowed us to see their viewpoints on humankind. Hobbes believes that humans are selfishly motivated and are constantly at war with one another. However, Locke has a more positive outlook. He believes that humans behaved based on the Law of Nature which is given to us by God (hobbeslockedocument). In Locke’s opinion, the State of Nature is free and has the right to life, liberty and property and if people want their rights respected, they should respect others. However, Locke is not delusional, he knows
As Martin Luther King once said, "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." There are several revolutions that ended a government that did not fulfill their part, The American Revolution, The French Revolution, etc. And as Locke recommended, it is best to fight for your freedom then idly standby until things clear because peace is the norm and we know right from wrong without a government (jim.com). Yet, Hobbes believes that having a corrupt government is superior to living in the state of nature, which, in his opinion, is constantly at war. He believes that humans are equally selfish, but wouldn’t that mean that even the absolute monarch also is self-interested and making the rules benefits him? Therefore, the government will not support the citizens and everyone will live in chaos. Thus why I believe that John Locke’s idea of government is much more accurate in regards to human nature. Having a government that shares their opinions and do not have absolute power over the ruled area is much more preferable then one that