Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both experienced different things in their life, resulting in their differences in what they believed. At the time Hobbes was writing The Leviathan, England was recovering from a series of civil wars, which resulted in the beheading of Charles I. In the Leviathan he is responding to this situation a period called the interregnum, during this time England was rejecting the institution of the monarchy. Eventually it ended with restoration of Charles II. The interregnum period showed Hobbes the chaos because of decline of the monarchy, shaping his support in the monarchy. Locke also grew up in England but at a later time, and did not experience the interregnum period, but both focused on similar issues of government. …show more content…
They both thought that man is created equal and has perfect freedom, and the brutality of the state of nature. The brutality of the state is caused by man being self-interested. As Locke states "perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit" man had freedom with his actions if he wants to destroy another's man things or that man if he wants. Hobbes quote reflects on Locke's idea that man is brutal "if any two men desire the same thing which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies…endeavor to destroy or subdue one another" if two people cannot have the same thing, because of man being selfish he is not going to let the other take the item form him, so he is going to do whatever it takes to get it for himself. Hobbes break down nature of man into three principals "First, competition; secondly, diffidence, thirdly, glory." He describes competition as man invades another man with violence for himself to gain what he has fought for. Diffidence is to defend what you fought for their safety and not to let anyone else take it away for you. Locke describes diffidence in sections 6 "but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it" if someone tries to take your things you have to defend them. Lastly glory, once you have taken and defended the things you wanted you can celebrate. Aside …show more content…
Locke argued that the natural rights were life liberty and property, and no one could take these rights away from you especially property. "the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent" he believed that the government should not have one complete power there should be multiple people in charge and the people should have control also. Locke states, "and the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit" Locke favored the representative government like the English parliament. On the other hand, Hobbes argued that government should have one complete power to keep peace. Hobbes states "which amongst them that have no common power to keep them in quiet" with one sovereign there could be more consistent power to restore peace. Today we see that John Locke is more relevant today in the world. His ideas of the legislative government are all over the world. We see this in the voting system in the United States, the whole population gets to make the decisions not just one power. Also, the idea of If the government should fail to do its job, its citizens would have the right to overthrow the government. Locke influenced Thomas Jefferson as he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Although we do not use the exact ideas of John Locke we use the concept of his ideas in everyday
John Locke liked freedom, he thought that freedom was good for the government. “...(W)e must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose [manage] of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature….” (Doc A) This states that Locke wants freedom but their comes consequences. To have this freedom men needed to create a government with a legislature and an executive. Locke’s main idea was people had rights.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are one of the most influential and famous philosophers who both had similar theories but had different conclusions. The two philosophers wrote a discourse “life in the state of nature” and argued about the government. They both had made important and logical contributions to modern philosophy and opened up political thoughts which have impacted our world today. During the seventeenth century the thought of political philosophy became a big topic. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both started questioning the political philosophy and had had different views and reasoning towards human beings. Both Hobbes and Locke had logical and reasonable theories in which they had opposed to one another. Although each philosopher
Hobbes and Locke both abandoned the thought of the divine right of monarchy. Both did not agree with the fact that the ruler or assembly would have all power over its citizens. So basically they were against Absolutism and their views were that of rebels in their time period. Theses two philosophers both held similar ideas but also have conflicting ideas pertaining to the citizens "social contract" with their rulers, "Natural Condition of Mankind," and sovereignty.
Contrasting Hobbes and Locke Nearly two-hundred and twenty-five years ago the United States of America chose to fight a Thomas Hobbes government, with the hope of forming a John Locke institution. The ideas of these men lead to the formation of two of the strongest nations in the history of the world: Great Britain followed by the United States. Thomas Hobbes viewed the ideal government as an absolute monarchy, due to the chaos of the state of nature in contrast, John Locke’s ideal government was a democracy due to his beliefs of the equality of men. These men have shared a few of the same beliefs, but mainly contrast each other.
John Locke believed in a democracy and expressed that humans have the ability to govern themselves. However, Hobbes believed that humans are selfish and need a single leader(king) that should govern all affairs. Post French Revolution people lived under Hobbes theory, but wanted to become a Republic.
His opinion of human nature was low. In Leviathan, Hobbes portrays humans as selfish, unsocial creatures driven by only two need, survival and personal gain. Therefore, human life is characterized by “constant struggle, strife, and war” with individuals against one another in a battle for self preservation . Hobbes claimed that there was “a general inclination of all [human]kind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death.” Therefore, Hobbes concludes that because of the selfishness of humans, they have no capacity of self government. Locke view humans is a different perspective. Locke developed his own philosophy, which is referred to as tabula rosa. Put simply, this refers to the idea that the human mind at birth is a blank slate without rules for processing data. Data is accumulated in the mind as the rules of processing data are formed. According to Locke, these rules are formed solely on a person’s sensory experience, therefore, Locke will argue that a person is neither good nor evil at birth, it is the summation of their experiences that determine the person that they become. That being said, humans can be educated to an inclination of good rather than evil. As a result, “the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all [human]kind, who will but consult it, that being
The formation of government is one of the central themes for both Hobbes and Locke. Whether or not men naturally form a government, or must form a government, is based on man’s basic nature. According to Hobbes, a government must be formed to preserve life and prevent loss of property. According to Locke, a government arises to protect life and property. Governments are born of inequality and formed to administer equality.
In conclusion, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both had different views on government. Locke believed that people should have rights while Hobbes believed otherwise. John Locke’s views were more effective that
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are comparable in their basic political ideologies about man and their rights in the state of nature before they enter a civil society. Their political ideas are very much similar in that regard. The resemblance between Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies are based on a few characteristics of the state of nature and the state of man. Firstly, in the state of nature both Hobbes and Locke agree that all men are created equal, but their definitions of equality in the state of nature slightly differ. According to Locke, “…in the state of nature… no one has power over another…” Locke’s version or idea of equality in the state of
Firstly, Locke believed in a system of justice that was based on freedom, self-governing, and the ideology that all people are naturally good. Hobbes would explain that Locke’s arguments are inherently flawed in that he doesn’t recognize that we are constantly in a state of war. This natural state of humanity or state of war is
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are often viewed as opposites, great philosophers who disagreed vehemently on the nature and power of government, as well as the state of nature from which government sprung. Hobbes’ Leviathan makes the case for absolute monarchy, while Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argues for a more limited, more representative society. However, though they differ on certain key points, the governments envisioned by both philosophers are far more alike than they initially appear. Though Hobbes and Locke disagree as to the duration of the social contract, they largely agree in both the powers it grants to a sovereign and the state of nature that compels its creation.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were two main political philosophers during the seventeenth century. Hobbes is largely known for his writing of the “Leviathan”, and Locke for authoring "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." Included in their essays, both men discuss the purpose and structure of government, natural law, and the characteristics of man in and out of the state of nature. The two men's opinion of man vary widely. Hobbes sees man as being evil, whereas Locke views man in a much more optimistic light. While in the state of nature and under natural law, they both agree that man is equal. However, their ideas of natural law differ
I believe both Hobbes and Locke are similar in the way that both of their theories are based on the natural state of human, a situation where everyone is entirely free because there is no interference of laws, but where man fears for their survival on a daily bases. They both agreed that a ruler of some sort appeared absolutely necessary for people, without
Both Locke and Hobbes have similarities because they both understand that all humans are equal. They both want to bring out and care everything that preserve their life and wanted no restriction to exercise their natural liberty rights. Even though they might agree that all humans are equal but they both have different ideas of equality and affect it is in their society. Hobbes believe that people are naturally equal and you don’t have to work for it. Some individuals might be weak but some have the ability to handle different situations at times.
Where Hobbes’ believed the state of nature and a state of war to be one and the same, Locke saw them as two separate entities, and sees the state of war as a smaller occurrence. Locke believed that nature is at peace until one man attacks another. In this state of war it is suitable for the person being attacked to defend themselves from the transgressor.