Locke and Hobbes

Locke and Hobbes disagree almost entirely on everything. I would say that Locke thinks of human nature as essentially good while Hobbes views it as essentially evil. Furthermore, for Hobbes people leave a state of nature for security, as they are driven by year. For Locke, however, the driving force is possessions and material wealth: we will live better if we form a society instead of living separately in a state of nature. I think their philosophy is different because of they background and also they were born in different period of time. Hobbes lived during several wars, and thus his philosophy is central on control and man as essentially greedy and evil. On the other hand, Locke lived in a more perseveres and peaceful time, and therefore his philosophy puts man into a better perseveres. A person history and perseveres influences how they think that is why agree with Locke. Locke and Hobbes both agree on the basic ideas of the state of nature, but for them the state of nature is different. The difference between them is that Locke said that man is by nature a social animal and for Hobbes man is not by nature social. Locke and Hobbes would agree that to rule a country it is necessary to have laws and government. However, Locke would disagree with Hobbes’ ideas of the monarchic rule. For Hobbes a king is the only one who can make the laws and decide for the people. While Hobbes would say the monarchic rule is the best way of ruling a country because people need to be ruled by someone. I like the philosophy of Locke because he is right in many ways by saying the best way to rule a country is to have a legislative government rather than a monarchic government. For example, The United States of America, The Dominican Republic and Brazil have legislative governments while North Korea and Cuba do not. Therefore, because of the way these countries are ruled and how the people can be free and choose they leaders in some ways, I would agree with Locke on his ideas and