Preview

Comparing Thomas Hobbes And John Locke

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1685 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Comparing Thomas Hobbes And John Locke
Lock verses Hobbs, a fundamental difference in the approach of government During the seventeenth century, Great Britain produced Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two of the greatest political philosophers of all times. Both men are known for their great philosophical ideas that help to explain the role of government in man’s life. Their explanations are based on the description of their understanding of man’s state of nature. While both men do have opposite views on many of their political arguments, the fact that they are able to structure the essence of their conflicting ideologies in to the shell of what they define as the state of man in nature, is the link that relates them to each other. Both man share there desire in an establishment that provides order to ensure not only the protection of the individual, but also the security of the state. …show more content…
His theory is that individuals in their true nature are guided by their innate primal, animalistic instincts, rather then reason. Hobbes’ concept of the state of nature is based on his believe that morality such as the ideas of good and evil do not exist in tis state. He claims that with out guidance, man will use any power at his deposal, to defend his life and positions. In his book Leviathan, Hobbes describes this condition as war, in other words, it is every one against every one. (Hobbes) In addition, he depicted the state of nature as a state in which individuals are without any of the benefits that are taken for granted in modern society. Hobbes describes the lack of these benefits as: “No commerce, no agriculture, no account of time, no arts, no letters, and no society. (Hobbes)” Hobbes believes that without proper structure, man is in constant state of war. A state where an overbearing sense of fear and grief, triggers men to be on a constant defense in order to protect themselves, and their

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
  • Powerful Essays

    The argument presented by Thomas Hobbes in chapter 13 of Leviathan, is that the state of nature is a state of war of all against all. Such a view had previously been discussed- earlier versions of the argument appear in other significant works- however it is Hobbes account of a state in “continuall feare of danger and violent death”1 upon which I will focus on and critique in this essay. There are many reasons why many seem to regard Hobbes argument as the most accurate portrayal of a pre-civilised society, many believe it to be so straightforward and seemingly correct that to object it would be to ignore a necessary truth. Secondly, those who accept Hobbes’ view of a human nature that is so egotistical and unforgiving, would seemingly too agree to the assumption of a gloomy, unbearable state of nature. In this essay I shall argue that such opinions are not logically justified as Hobbes’s argument holds its foundations solidly in assumption alone, an assumption that was heavily moulded on his surroundings of a savage Civil War. Hobbes’s argument lies solely on the grounds that human beings are intrinsically wicked and self-centred beings an argument that cannot be completely validated and therefore cannot be a ‘necessary truth’. Yet despite holding such a bleak outlook on the human condition and its simple invalidity the work of Thomas Hobbes still shapes the political word today2 and it continues to impact our understanding of human nature and interactions. In order to justify my critique of Hobbes I will begin by presenting both his original argument and a brief view of some modern interpretations before cross examining their conclusions against that of other social contract theorist such as Locke and Rousseau as well as rational logic to present the argument that the state of nature is most certainly not a state of war of all against all.…

    • 3361 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    For the past many years, people have been trying to figure out the relationship between the government and nature of man. The theories of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau about the connection between nature of man and the government have been debated for many years. These three philosophers have remarkably influenced the way our system works today. Although each theory had its flaws and merits, Jean Jacques Rousseau’s theory is superior in comparison to Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.…

    • 514 Words
    • 3 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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Locke Vs Hobbes

    • 184 Words
    • 1 Page

    Throughout history, people have debated about what government is, and what is the purpose of it. Should the government dictate people's lives and tell them what to do? Should the government be permissive and just allow the people take care of themselves and not step in? Should there be an in between? Two very influential philosophers from the 17th century Enlightenment, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, are preeminent influences on how people see what a government is and what role it should take. They both were renowned influences in many governments, even to this day. Locke took the side that people are naturally good, and that they should rule themselves. While on the other hand, Hobbes said that humans are naturally brutish and evil,…

    • 184 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory 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
  • 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
  • Good Essays

    In the start of the Scientific Revolution, people started thinking differently. Scholars and philosophers began to rethink their views about the old society and the way of living. Aspects of government, religion, economics and education were criticized. Two political thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both experienced political hardships throughout their times, however they both came to two totally different conclusions on how future government should be ran.…

    • 478 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Locke Vs Hobbes Essay

    • 669 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The battle between Hobbes and Locke still continues today through their influence on governments and how they believed government should work. Hobbes believed in an absolute monarch where they were to demand obedience in order to maintain order. On the other hand, John Locke thought that a Democracy was a better form of government provided that they had the right information to make. This form of government allows the people to keep their natural rights rather than giving them up in exchange for protection by the monarch. As a result of their views on human nature and what form government should take, it is easy to see why Lockean government is more powerful than Hobbesian by looking at past governments in history as well as logically.…

    • 669 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Locke vs Hobbes

    • 4270 Words
    • 18 Pages

    The concept of human security, which has had a crucial place in human's societal history, has been argued over by many great philosophers throughout mankind’s existence. Two pioneer thinkers of political philosophy, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, theorized state of nature typologies, which are the core of social contract theory, and created a concept of modern security, even in the 17th century. Hobbes created a contract entrusting absolute power to the sovereign, which thrived off of the individual's duty and responsibilities to the government. Contrary to Hobbes, Locke recognized the secure relationship between individuals' rights and liberties and the role of the sovereign. These two philosophers revolutionized liberal thinking in the height of the enlightenment age in which many philosophers questioned and argued over the relationship between the state and the individual. Hobbes and Locke, two brilliant thinkers, are notorious for being the founders of social contract liberalism. Before one can look at each philosopher’s social contract, we must first define what separated their thinking from the standard at that time, and what actually made them liberal thinkers. There had been one way of thinking in governmental rule for thousands of years which had been formed around the tyrannical ideals of hereditary privilege, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. These governmental ideals, which extremely lacked rights for the individual, had been spread all over the world for thousands of years and throughout many empires. What made Locke and Hobbes such liberal thinkers, was their ideas of a mutual relationship between the individual and the state. This was a mutual contract in which both parties had an agreement where they could coincide, benefit, and enforce the liberal ideals of liberty, equality, and justice. Now one must dive into both philosophers proposed social contract, to get a…

    • 4270 Words
    • 18 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Locke vs Hobbes

    • 395 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Locke believed that, “human behavior came from thought which was learned and subject to the influence of reason and observation.” Locke’s main ideas were positive to the human race. He also states that humans know right from wrong, and they are intelligent enough to solve the problems in front of them and realizing what is lawful and unlawful. Locke believed, “God created man and we were, in effect, God’s property.”…

    • 395 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The seventeenth century in England was a time of many kings. Within a century, the reigns of five kings as well as a military dictator had run rampant over England’s government. Starting with James I, the English monarchy traversed to Charles I, Oliver Cromwell, Charles II, James II, and finally William III. With the ascensions of Cromwell and William III, drastic events changed the course of England’s history, as well as influencing two famous philosophical men. Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan, and John Locke, author of Second Treatise on Civil Government, drew on their experiences of England’s monarchical turmoil to conceive very different political theories. Both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were prominent political philosophers in the…

    • 967 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hobbes VS Locke

    • 273 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both had very different views on society and government. For Locke, natural rights could co-exist within a civil society and that natural rights and civil society were not mutually exclusive categories. While Hobbes thinks that the absolute power of the sovereign is simply the price mankind must pay for peace, Locke believes that absolute power is never a remedy for the state of nature. Hobbes and Locke also greatly differed in their opinions on the role of the state in society. Locke believed that government had obligations to fulfill, but not rights, and “cannot do as it pleases”. He saw necessary a separation of powers to protect the individual rights of the people, and if these rights were infringed or trust was violated, “people have the right to alter or abolish the government. These views were directly opposite to Hobbes. Hobbes was in favor of the opinion that the people have formed the government for peace and security, and that in return, people should not be allowed to change, judge, or protest against their government. He thought that an absence of government could lead to possibility of violent death, and therefore “government should never give up its power”.…

    • 273 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Locke Vs Hobbes

    • 508 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two of the greatest political and philosophical thinkers of their time and ours. Ideas like these have shaped governments throughout history and still hold true today. They had extremely different views on government, but the bases of their arguments were similar. They used reason to justify their ideas, rather than divine right. Although both men acknowledged that there was a God, He played a very small part in their ideologies. The philosophers each had an impact on the world. John Locke’s ideas influenced the United States Declaration of Independence, Federalist papers, and the Constitution. Thomas Hobbes’s ideas refuted England’s parliament. Hobbes and Locke agreed that some type of ruler would be necessary,…

    • 508 Words
    • 3 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