Thomas Hobbes vs. John Locke

Good Essays
Thomas Hobbes vs. John Locke

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. Hobbes was a philosopher who saw humans as a purely physical being. He believed that all human actions can be explained through the motions in our bodies. According to Hobbes all feelings and emotions are a result of phantasms, our perception of the objects around us. This perception is a motion within our bodies and each person perceives these phantasms differently causing love, hate, desires, and what we think is good and bad. Every feeling that comes from ones perspective has a physical feeling, such as desires can cause certain pains and it is only human nature that one does whatever is needed in order to relieve those pains. Hobbes therefore sees humans as being able, by their state of nature, to take or do whatever necessary for themselves even if it shows no regard for the other people their actions may harm. This inevitably would end up in a fight for survival or “the war of all against all”. In order to prevent such a war from happening Hobbes thought it necessary that the individuals must promise each other to give up their right to govern themselves to the sovereign for the mutual benefit of the people. This sovereign then has absolute power to rule with no questions asked and not to only act on behalf of the citizens but to completely embody their will. In summation, Hobbes believed that society could only exist under power of the sovereign and that life in the state of nature is violent, short and brutish, as all men act on self-interest. Locke on the other hand, saw man by human nature as a social animal

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Hobbes vs Hume

    • 999 Words
    • 4 Pages

    In the history of philosophy, two of the most prominent philosophers were Hobbes and Hume. Both made important contributions to the world of ethics. One of the main important things they differed on is reason. Hobbs felt that reason is way to seek peace but Hume felt the reason is only a slave to passions. In the following paragraphs, you will see how Hobbes and Hume explain their different views on reason the theories of the two philosophers are analyzed in depth, so that we can have a comprehensive understanding.…

    • 999 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Hobbes’s theory begins with the foundational assumption that we are all reasonable and rational beings and are empirically free and equal. For Hobbes freedom is a negative freedom as it means freedom from external constraints e.g. the law and equal in the sense that neither would be guaranteed to win in a battle due to equality of strength or cleverness which balances itself out. He suggests that if left to our own devices we would regress into a state of nature due to quarrels regarding competition, diffidence and reputation. The state of nature is a war of all men against all men as everyone has a right to everything. There are many laws of nature, three of the main ones being that we seek peace, we want to enjoy things and that agreements we make are kept. According to Hobbes as rational people we would see that it is reasonable to exit the state of nature and enter a civil condition in order to avoid attack and be able to live without the fear, so to…

    • 1794 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    1. The Enlightenment thinker that I most agree with is John Locke. I most agree with him because he concurs with Hobbes about the severity of the condition of nature, which obliges a social contract to guarantee peace. Be that as it may, he can't help contradicting 2 things. He contended that regular rights, for example, life, liberty, and property existed in the condition of nature and could never be taken away or even willfully surrendered by people. Locke additionally couldn't help contradicting Hobbes about the social contract. For him, it was an assention among the individuals, as well as in the middle of them and the sovereign. Despite the fact that he stood up for freedom of thought, speech, and religion,…

    • 389 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Imagine that American public officials were meeting today to write a framework for governing a nation. What would be the influence of Hobbes and Locke today? Would the social contract be applied the same as in the 18th century, or would today's leaders look at the writings of Hobbes and Locke differently?…

    • 4904 Words
    • 20 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    When researching the two philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, I have come to a realization that they are both correct considering people are themselves no matter. When looking at a majority though I tend to side with John Locke. People are genuinely more loving and helpful people when it comes down to the bare minimum.…

    • 364 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Looking to the science of the day, Hobbes determined that there was no soul and attempted to describe human nature as pure mechanics. Human nature was therefore driven by the need to satisfy the physical demands of the body and based on basic passions in life. These are to satisfy physical appetites, to seek power to maintain their wealth and to be superior to others by seeking glory. Hobbes saw the state nature as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." The state of nature is anarchy, with constant violence (or potential violence) by amoral leaders terrorizing the population. Reason is the answer that will lead to a social contract and government. Individuals will give up their individual rights and freedoms to secure peace. Morality…

    • 1753 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Firstly, Hobbes argues that when there is no government or civil authority in place, humans are living in a state of nature. This state is what Hobbes calls a war, “of every man against every other man” (Leviathan pg.106). Since there is no order in place, everybody can then claim anything they want for themselves. To Hobbes, this war is a result of three different causes. Hobbes claims that humans are, for the most part, physically equal. He acknowledges that some people are stronger than others are but we are all individuals, have basically the same mental reasoning, and are vulnerable. This means that a competition results among any person or group of people any time that they want something. For example, if I wish I had something that somebody else is in possession of already; and this person is bigger and stronger than me, I can get a few friends together and physically take whatever it is that I wanted. War also arises out of panic, or attacking somebody for fear that they are about to attack you; a pre-emptive strike. So, if I think that somebody wants to take something of mine, I may take something of theirs before they have a chance, and harm them for the purpose of protecting myself. The third cause of war is glory, or the desire to be feared and have a good reputation, to put fear into…

    • 1322 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes:Natural Condition

    • 672 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Hobbes first defines what humans are at their most basic level. He compares human beings to rational machines fueled by their passions as well as reason. He states that humans use this reason to help them acquire happiness, the ultimate goal of man in the state of nature. Closely linked with such happiness is human’s drive to exert their superiority over other people. By this Hobbes suggests that because of this need to assert their dominance over others, it is natural for men to become enemies of one another. Hobbes states that, “In the state of nature we find three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly glory”(Hobbes 76). Here Hobbes is saying that without authority, a man’s natural instincts tell him to take whatever he wants, and if another man has something he wants, he is driven to take it by force. Conversely if a person has something that is desired by others, it is instinctual for him to defend it. Also, Hobbes states that an important characteristic of man’s natural condition is his constant yearning for glory. By saying this he suggests that man will always seek ways to affirm his superiority over others. Therefore, Hobbes argues, the natural condition of…

    • 672 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes, who was an English philosopher, believed that human beings in general were selfish and always-in search for power to achieve their object of desires. So naturally Hobbes’s conception of the state of nature would be one that involves competition between people that are unrestrained, selfish and uncivilized. According to Hobbes, life in the state of nature is miserable, it is filled with war, and you have to always be on the look out and you can never let your guard down. For Hobbes, because everyone seeks power, this leads to competition and war. He offers three reasons why this happens which are scarcity, equality and uncertainty. In his state of nature there are scarce numbers of goods so people will desire the same thing, everyone possess the same level of skill and ability to kill, and everyone is in a state of fear and doesn’t want to be vulnerable to attack. With all these factors this leads to the source of the war being because of selfishness and fear, where people are fighting to gain power and defending their lives. In Hobbes’s state of nature everyone has The Natural Right of Liberty, which means that you have the right to defend yourself from harm however you see fit. Hobbes’s only account of achieving peace in the state of nature is through sovereign, where government needs unlimited authority…

    • 1364 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hobbes identified three reasons why the state of nature would be a state of war of “all against all”, by which he means not constant fighting but a constant readiness to fight. First, without government there would be little or no industry and so resources would be very limited. People must attack for gain in order to take whatever possessions others had managed to acquire. Second, individuals would try to pre-empt these attacks, and get their defence in first. This Hobbes calls ‘diffidence’. Third, people would realize the advantages of a reputation for strength and attack others simply for glory. These natural causes of quarrel are how Hobbes concluded that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear. Hobbes believes that humans have three motivations for ending this state of war; the fear of death, the desire for better living conditions, and hope for a means to achieve those conditions.…

    • 1668 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Social Contract Theory

    • 1026 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Hobbes’ depiction of the state of nature is that within which man is born free, equal and rational. Faced with scarcity of resources, he will exercise his freedom by taking what he desires from another, killing him if needs be. Hobbes’ notion is that of creates perpetual fear and suspicion, creating what “war of man against every man”, resulting in man’s life being “short, brutish, solitary and poor”. Hobbes also highlights that man’s primary concern is ‘self-preservation’, and to achieve he mutually gives up his freedom, forms a community with a set of rules and appoints a head, preferably a Monarch, who punishes transgressors in a bid to ensure peace and safety. (Tuck and Silverstone, 1998 :21-35) this is Hobbes notion of a social contract and beginning of civil society ruled by an absolute power, whom man cannot rebel against for fear of returning to the ‘state of nature’ rebellion is permissible where the Monarch fails to…

    • 1026 Words
    • 5 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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    There is a great number of similarities and differences between John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. They are both very important.…

    • 214 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory 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

    Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) greatly disagreed on many key issues of their day; issues such as human nature, political authority, and the right of people to rebel. Hobbes studied before the Enlightenment, whereas that influenced John Locke's views immensely. Hobbes's ideas are also derived from his pessimistic view of human nature. He viewed people as selfish and greedy. To the contrary, Locke viewed people as good and intelligent.…

    • 693 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays