Top-Rated Free Essay

Locke and Human Nature

Good Essays
Both Hobbes and Locke see human nature differently, Hobbes sees people as being run by selfishness whereas Locke says that people are naturally kind. In our state of nature, Hobbes says we have no rights but Locke suggests that we have natural rights

Hobbes shows that humans are naturally evil that lays down the groundwork for his form of government. Hobbes and Locke’s theories differ greatly beginning with their views of human nature. Hobbes suggests that people are naturally, solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish. He also says that without authority mankind is selfish and egotistical. John Locke, on the other hand, sees people as being peaceful in their nature state. These different points of show how they formed their theory of the state of natüre
Hobbes’ theory is a pessimistic look at human being and the way they act around each other but Locke’s theory suggests that people are more easy-going and peaceful towards each other. As we see in the news daily, people are often cruel and inhumane, and we also see kinder people in everyday life. We see people who give up their own personal pleasure so they can serve others. But these people are far and few between, it becomes quickly obvious that humans are drawn towards self-happiness

Acording to Machiavelli and Locke
Despite their contradictions on "sovereignty", John Locke and Niccolo Machiavelli shared one conspicuous concern, and that is their concern for the betterment of society. It is plain to see that both philosophers did have common ways of thinking regarding what a ruler should and should not do. It is 'how' a ruler should behave in order to win sovereignty of his state that led to a divergence in their opinions.
Machiavelli and Locke both considered the nature of government and man's individual interests as they relate to governmental structures. Machievelli's idea of fortune and Locke's 'state of nature' concept both shaped the theorists arguments about the purpose of political life. It has been posited that for Machiavelli, politics is an unpredictable arena in which ambition, deception and violence render the idea of the common good meaningless, while Locke would argue that political or civil society exists only to preserve the rights of the individual. It can be argued that for both Machiavelli and Lock, political activity, then, becomes merely a means of satisfying selfish ends.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    One of the most apparent differences in the two authors’ (John Locke and Thomas Hobbes) point-of-views is their interpretations of what ungoverned societies, or humans in general, are like in their natural state.…

    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    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…

    • 536 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • 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

    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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hobbes believes that the government protects us from ourselves. While Locke believes the government protects natural rights. They have different beliefs on why they have the government. Hobbes believes that sovereignty resides to the monarch, or the kings. Locke believes that sovereignty resides to the people or the community. Sovereignty is where the power is holded. Hobbes believes that the government’s…

    • 214 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The lack of an impartial judge is a defining characteristic of the state of nature, and this lack of a common judge can lead to confusion and violence therefore leading to the state of war. The state of nature and the state of war are not two separate concepts but the state of nature has the fundamental problem and civil government is the solution for the problems of the state of nature.…

    • 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
  • Good Essays

    The big differences that I noticed between Locke’s State of Nature and Hobbes’ State of Nature were that they both had different outlooks on the meaning of State of War and on people’s reaction to and with government. Locke believed that State of Nature is not equivalent to State of War whereas Hobbes made it seem that a State of Nature isn’t a safe place. Hobbes descried a State of Nature to be more violent and a state that people should fear. Locke’s view was more neutral compared to Hobbes’ idea. From what I read, it seemed that Locke believed the State of Nature to be kind of crazy, but this craziness isn’t good or bad. When Hobbes’ talked about government he talked mostly about how people think about themselves before others. People will…

    • 386 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes vs Locke

    • 551 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were known as Social Contract Theorists, and Natural Law Theorists. The two men both had very strong views on freedom and how a country should be governed. Thomas Hobbes had more of a Pessimistic view while John locke had more of an Optimistic view. Hobbes and Locke believed in a type of Social Contract between the Government and being governed. Hobbes believed in Absolute Monarchs and Locke believed in the will of people being governed. Hobbes opposed constitutionalism because of his pessimistic appraisal of human nature. They both had extremely different views on government, but the bases of their arguments were similar. They both used reason to justify their ideas, rather than divine right. Although both men acknowledged that there was a God, He played a very small role in their ideologies. I believe that both Hobbes and Locke are genuinely correct.…

    • 551 Words
    • 3 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
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes contribution was the suggestion that the social order was made by human beings and therefore could be changed by human beings. Hobbes looked on the individual as selfish, concerned with self-preservation, searching for power, and (potentially at least) at war with others. For Hobbes, in the state of nature, there was a war of all against all and life is nasty, brutish, and short. Since individuals are rational, they agree to surrender their individual rights to the sovereign in order to create a state whereby they can be protected from other individuals. Locke and Rousseau further developed this idea of a social contract, although in a somewhat different form than Hobbes.…

    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Enlightenment Thinkers

    • 503 Words
    • 3 Pages

    John Locke was another philosopher of the Enlightenment. He viewed human nature very differently from Hobbes. Locke said a person is not born good or evil. Rather he said, people's characters are shaped by their…

    • 503 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes' view of the state of nature and Locke's view of the state of nature offer remarkable differences. Hobbes believed people act on their own self-interest, and they would go to any extreme to help themselves. He believed we are always in competition with each other for the best food, shelter, money, and so on. Hobbes believed the best way to protect citizens would be to have a sovereign that is intimidating and all-powerful.…

    • 841 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The ideas of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes heavily influenced the thinking of the writers of the U.S. Constitution. Both believed in a social contract, that is, that government exists at the consent of the governed, but Locke believed that people would naturally come together to govern themselves, while Hobbes believed they needed a strong authority (monarch) to bring them together. As you research to learn more about what these two philosophers thought about politics, which of their two fundamental ideas most reflect your own thinking? Why? I agree more so with John Locke and his statement on letting the people govern themselves because we do have rights and should be able to make our own decisions. We shouldn’t have to ask someone permission on which school my kids should go to or if I should run this or that or how I live my life. If Thomas Hobbes would have enforced letting someone have total rule then the world would be more complicated today if someone else made decisions for us.…

    • 320 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    John Locke believed that everyone was born naturally good and had three basic rights, the rights to life, liberty, and property. Thomas Hobbes however, believed everyone was born naturally evil and needed to be controlled and punished. This greatly affected both of their views on government. Thomas Hobbes, since he thought people were evil and should be stripped of free will, believed in absolute monarchy and that people were incapable of making decisions for themselves, whereas John Locke, believing people were naturally good and capable of making decisions for themselves, believed that it is vital that the government was ruled…

    • 333 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays