Preview

Compare And Contrast Locke And Hobbes State Of Nature

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1551 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Compare And Contrast Locke And Hobbes State Of Nature
Locke and Hobbes both had detailed accounts as to what the state of nature is. I will start with Hobbes and what he felt the state of nature is made up of. Hobbes believed in defining the state of nature as what it is instead of what it ought to be. So he focused in on the nature of people and came to a very descriptive conclusion as to how survive in this particular state of nature. He stated that man was equal in ambition, cruelty, and treachery, which in turn makes humans equal in the ability to kill each other. This is important because he believes that people can not live in peace in the state of nature because of those reasons. Also because of this he states that there are three principals of quarrels; competition, diffidence, and glory. Hobbes feels that because of human nature these three reasons to fight would take over and make the state of nature a state of war. Locke also has an opinion to the state of nature. He feels that men would respond to things and people around them with reason and rationality. Therefore he feels that a state of nature for the most part peaceful and pleasant. He also states that the natural law would guide humans in a state of nature. He thinks …show more content…
They both believe in revolt if the contract is broken, but they state it differently. Hobbes believes in the monarch so the revolt against him would be different then Locke's society of popular sovereignty, but in short it both of them called for persecution in such case. Still the case that called for persecution would naturally be different because of the different types of governments these men called for. For example Locke says it is time to revolt when a ruler tries to get absolute power of the people; but Hobbes states that the leviathan needs to have absolute power and the only time to revolt is if the monarch is not able to protect the people he rules

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    At first sight, Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government, seemed quite similar to Hobbes’s Leviathan. They both believed that a state of nature is a state that exist without government. They believe that men are created equal in this state, however Hobbes argues that because of self-preservation, man possessed the desire to control over other man. Locke, on the other hand, reasons with a more peaceful and pleasant place.…

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    After analyzing how Locke and Hobbes understand the state of nature it is evident that they share many ideas but they also show essential differences in their ideas. Hobbes regards the state of nature as a state of war, in which natural law is established only after a process of reasoning. This process leads men to the conclusion that they must somehow find…

    • 397 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    For Hobbes, the need of an outright power, as a Sovereign, took after from the utter ruthlessness of the State of Nature. The State of Nature was totally grievous, thus objective men would will to submit themselves even to outright power with a specific end goal to escape it. For John Locke, 1632-1704, the State of Nature is an altogether different sort of spot, thus his contention concerning the social contract and the way of men's relationship to power are subsequently entirely distinctive. While Locke uses Hobbes' methodological gadget of the State of Nature, as do for all intents and purposes all social contract scholars, he utilizes it to a very distinctive end. Locke's contentions for the social contract, and for the privilege of residents…

    • 152 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The first being the state of nature as defined by Thomas Hobbes is that of a pre-societal state. In general terms this means there would be no government or any form of laws, leading citizens towards a constant state of war. As a result of this, people would be motivated solely by self interest, and would not have any regards towards others needs. This relates to a lecture on Zombies and Sociology given by Dr. Peters. Dr. Peter’s pointed out the fact that society begins to fail as a whole when its institutions breakdown. Government, the economy, religion, education, media and family are all institutions of society. In a Hobbesian state of nature it is likely that very few of these intuitions would continue to stand, the first to go being government and economy. It is also worth noting that in a Hobbesian state of nature, individuals are motivated to act out of fear, which Professor Gillard mentioned in his lecture. This explains why people act only to meet their personal needs, they are so blinded by fear that they fail to rationalize the needs of others. Locke takes a different approach when it comes to defining the state of nature, which places more emphasis on…

    • 2405 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Locke’s’ piece, Of the State of Nature Chapter II, he emphasizes the positive views of human nature. Locke supports a no-government form of rule. He believes that man can rise above injustice and keep a fully functioning society without rule or as he puts it they can have “A State of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit…..” (Locke). If you give man the freedom to make his own decisions and choices he will make the correct ones. Freedom of choice is what is needed to keep a society intact and functioning, individuals in a society need to feel as if they are in charge of their own destiny. The natural rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are backed up by the notion of freedom and choice of…

    • 464 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Hobbes vs Locke

    • 1466 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Both Hobbes and Locke shared similarities within their political theories; however their theories also had some major differences. Both men were responding to the crisis of the 17th century and they were highly influenced by the scientific revolution. Hobbes and Locke rejected all previous theories regarding human nature. They used the same methodology, and the men accepted an atomistic view of society. They believed that individuals were rational and were motivated by self-interest. Hobbes and Locke traced their theories from a state of nature to the social contract. They agreed that the legitimacy of the government rested on the consent of the governed. Together, both men rejected legitimate political authorities such as Divine Right of Kings, brute force, historical tradition, and feudal contracts. Both political philosophers offered interesting arguments pertaining to government, human nature, and the state of nature.…

    • 1466 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Locke believes that before we form civil society by consenting to establish government, we live in a State of Nature. He describes this pre-political state as,...a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending on the will of any other man. (Locke, 1980, p.81)The State of Nature is ruled essentially by human nature. Liberty, equality, self preservation, reason, and property are the most prominent principles that Locke feels are innate to humans. Locke explains how nature intended for all men to be equal,...creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same facilities should be equal amongst another... (Locke, 1980, p.8)Locke comes to the conclusion that humans are self preserving in the State of…

    • 4014 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Many philosophers, such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, have discussed over the years if he human race is naturally good or evil. People than choice their side of the argument, one side believing that humans have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, while the other side believes that humans have a bad nature that is kept in check by society. As John Locke believes that the human race is good, it is reasonable to accept as true because we are born neutral, with free will, and fear of a higher power.…

    • 577 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    When it comes to State of Nature, Locke writes in his Two Treatises of Government,“...a state of perfect freedom of acting and disposing of their own possessions and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature...The natural state is also one of equality in which all power and jurisdiction is reciprocal...” (Lonang Institute; State of Nature §4). Men are freely allowed to do whatever is necessary as long as there are justifications for their actions and to see that everyone around them is just as equal as themselves. Along with his State of Nature is Locke’s belief of Social Contact: “individuals in a state of nature would be bound morally, by the Law of Nature, not to harm each other in their lives or possession… individuals would agree to form a state that would provide a "neutral judge"...an impartial, objective agent of that self-defense, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executioner...”(Social Contract-Wikipedia). In other terms, man must form a government that they entrust their lives with by giving them support and power, and in return, the government must protect the people from hurting one another by being the objective factor in the justice system. Finally, in the State of Man, Locke claims that “at birth, the mind was a blank slate or “tabula rasa”... born without innate ideas, and that…

    • 1757 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were to philosophers with opposing opinions on human nature and the state of nature. Locke saw humanity and life with optimism and community, whereas Hobbes only thought of humans as being capable of living a more violent, self-interested lifestyle which would lead to civil unrest. However, both can agree that in order for either way of life to achieve success there must be a sovereign.…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    According to John Locke's State of Nature, he believed human being was born to have some certain right. One of them is a state of freedom; he said that all man were naturally in state of perfect freedom to order their action and disposed of their possessions and persons as they thought without any bounds of the law of nature or depending upon the will of any other man. It means that individuals have freedom on life and making decision. Equality is the second state which all man was equal with natural right that no king or other man had power to voice because each individual was born equally with " all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties." He also argued “Men living according to reason, without a common superior on earth, to judge between them, are property the state of nature."(Two Treaties 2.19). Although all man has freedom to do their wants, they cannot harm or use on other people because of their profits. It is called a state of liberty. Locke defended “the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that, being all equal and independent, no…

    • 901 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes' and Locke's writings center on the definition of the "state of nature" and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and "the state of nature", a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes' Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler's powers. The understanding of the state of nature is essential to both theorists' discussions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is equivalent to a state of war. Locke's description of the state of nature is more complex: initially the state of nature is one of "peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation". Transgressions against the law of nature, or reason which "teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions," are but few. The state of nature, according to Locke's Treatise, consists of the society of man, distinct from political society, live together without any superior authority to restrict and judge their actions. It is when man begins to acquire property that the state of nature becomes somewhat less peaceful. At an undetermined point in the history of man, a people, while still in the state of nature, allowed one person to become their leader and judge over controversies. This was first the patriarch of a…

    • 3013 Words
    • 87 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    When comparing Rousseau to Hobbes and Locke, the differences in their ideologies are prominent, however, they are still similar in some ways. In the State of Nature according to Rousseau, “man’s natural sentiment was that of his existence, his first care that of his preservation” (Discourse, Part II). This man is known as the “nascent man” and is often contrasted with the “savage man”, who exists in civilized society. In this State of Nature, man’s primary concern is to look after himself, similar to Hobbes’ and Locke’s, However, this is essentially the extent of the similarities between the three. Hobbes and Locke believe that man is naturally a societal animal who thrives with the presence of politics, whereas Rousseau believes exactly the opposite: that man is naturally a solitary animal, and that society corrupts us.…

    • 539 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Rousseau states that Hobbes and Locke mischaracterize the state of nature, since man is not motivated by greed, envy or material things in a true state of nature. From Rousseau point of view man would be motivated by love to the self and self preservation. Rousseau expresses how animals does not have a need for material things and they life in a state of nature.…

    • 65 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hobbes credits to each person in the state of nature a liberty right to preserve herself, which he terms “the right of nature”. This is the right to do whatsoever one sincerely judges requiring for one's protection; yet because it is at least possible that virtually anything might be judged necessary for one's protection, this hypothetically limited right of nature becomes in practice an unlimited right to potentially anything, or, as Hobbes puts it, a right “to all things”. Hobbes further assumes that people should accept what they see to be the necessary means to their most important ends.…

    • 214 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays