Compare and Contrast Hobbes’s and Locke’s Views of the State of Nature and the Fundamental Purpose of Political Society. Whose View Is the More Plausible? Why?
Compare and contrast Hobbes’s and Locke’s views of the state of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society. Whose view is the more plausible? Why?
Introduction
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both natural law theorists and social contracts theorists. While most natural law theorists have predominantly been of the opinion that humans are social animals by nature, Locke and Hobbes had a different perspective. Their points of view were remarkably different from those perpetuated by other natural law theorists. On the other hand, Locke’s perspective of human nature wasn’t quite as fine as Hobbe’s, although it was much simpler to understand based on its logical foundation. This essay compares and contrast Hobbes’ and Locke’s views of the state of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society. Firstly, the main features of natural law and different points of views of Hobbes and Locke are outlined, then compared and, finally, concluded to the fact that Locke’s ideas were more plausible.
Comparing and contrasting Hobbes’s and Locke’s views of the state of nature
The state of nature is a significant philosophical concept that permits social contract theorists to present an understanding of the human nature as well as provide a justification for the establishment of government. Locke and Hobbes have proposed contending versions of the state of nature in “Two Treatises of Government and Leviathan correspondingly, while arriving at very different conclusions (Locke 2005; Hobbes 1994). A primary difference between Hobbes and Locke is on how they describe a man. An assessment of their idea of pre-societal man shows a large extent of the difference in their viewpoints. This essay analyses Hobbe’s and Locke’s views on the state of nature and compares it with Locke’s to shed light on the variations of the great 17th century social contract theorists.
Locke’s perspective on state of nature is not as clearly distinct as Hobbes’
Introduction
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both natural law theorists and social contracts theorists. While most natural law theorists have predominantly been of the opinion that humans are social animals by nature, Locke and Hobbes had a different perspective. Their points of view were remarkably different from those perpetuated by other natural law theorists. On the other hand, Locke’s perspective of human nature wasn’t quite as fine as Hobbe’s, although it was much simpler to understand based on its logical foundation. This essay compares and contrast Hobbes’ and Locke’s views of the state of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society. Firstly, the main features of natural law and different points of views of Hobbes and Locke are outlined, then compared and, finally, concluded to the fact that Locke’s ideas were more plausible.
Comparing and contrasting Hobbes’s and Locke’s views of the state of nature
The state of nature is a significant philosophical concept that permits social contract theorists to present an understanding of the human nature as well as provide a justification for the establishment of government. Locke and Hobbes have proposed contending versions of the state of nature in “Two Treatises of Government and Leviathan correspondingly, while arriving at very different conclusions (Locke 2005; Hobbes 1994). A primary difference between Hobbes and Locke is on how they describe a man. An assessment of their idea of pre-societal man shows a large extent of the difference in their viewpoints. This essay analyses Hobbe’s and Locke’s views on the state of nature and compares it with Locke’s to shed light on the variations of the great 17th century social contract theorists.
Locke’s perspective on state of nature is not as clearly distinct as Hobbes’
References: Armitage, D. (2004). “John Locke, Carolina, And The Two Treatises Of Government.” Political Theory, 32(5), pp602-627 Hobbes, T. (1994), Leviathan. 1651. Edwin Curley (Ed.) Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing. Locke, J. (2005). Two Treatises of Government. Peter Laslett (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Theodore C Denise, Nicolas P. White, Damian Cox (2012). ‘Core 11-120 Ethics and Values 1st Edition’, Australia