Compare And Contrast Hobbes And John Locke

811 Words4 Pages
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
Open Document