Comparing Hobbes And Locke's Analysis

Thomas Hobbes and john Locke were both enlightment philosophers who use the state of nature as a formula in political philosophy. Both Locke and Hobbes had tried to influence by their sociopolitical background, “to expose the man as he was before the advent of the social life” (). Locke and Hobbes addressed man’s relation to the society around him; however, they came to different conclusions regarding the nature of human government.

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.

Locke and Hobbes are both famed political philosophers whose writings have been greatly influential in the development of modern political thought. In addition, the two are similar in that both refer to a “state of nature” in which man exists without government, and both speak of risks in this state. However, while both speak of the dangers of a state of nature, Hobbes is more pessimistic, whereas Locke speaks of the potential benefits. In addition, Hobbes speaks of states of nature theoretically, whereas Locke points out examples where they exist.

Thomas Hobbes describes his views on human nature and his ideal government in Leviathan. He believes human nature is antagonistic, and condemns man to a life of violence and misery without strong government. In contrast to animals, who are able to live together in a society without a coercive power, Hobbes believes that men are unable to coexist peacefully without a greater authority because they are confrontational by nature. “In the nature of man”, Hobbes says “there are three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence, thirdly, glory” and then he goes on to list man’s primary aims for each being gain, safety and reputation (Hobbes, Leviathan, 13, 6).

Change is in the inevitable byproduct of society. As societies evolve they change according to the life style of the people who inhabit them. Without change, society would never progress and thus would be frozen in a single moment in time. Thomas Hobbes and John Lock were two English philosophers who observed tremendous changes in English politics between the years of 1640 and 1690. In closely examining the views of both of these philosophers in subject areas such as the nature of man in society, the relationship between a society and its government, and the affect that both philosophers’ novels had on the government, it can be concluded that both Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies created prominent change in the methods of government.

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.

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

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both share the common vision of the role of a social contract to maintain order in a state. However, their philosophies were cognizant of a sharp contrasting concept of human nature. This essay aims to compare and contrast the social contracts of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in respect to their definition of natural law. This essay will first analyze the pessimistic Hobbesian approach to the state of nature, the inherit optimistic approach of Locke, and then observe how their definitions directly affect their social contract.

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

Hobbes wrote that in order for men to have security and to escape the State of War that exists in the State of nature, they must "conferre all their power and strength upon one Man" and that this man will "beare their Person." In fact, Hobbes did not consider the State of Nature as having existed generally throughout the world. Locke on the other hand says that it is a state men are naturally in and will remain so unless men consent to form a civil society.

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;

John Locke (1689) and Thomas Hobbes (2010) share a common underlying concern: establishing a social contract between the government and the governed. To be legitimate, government must rest in the final analysis on the “consent” of the governed, they maintain. They also share a common view of humanity as prone to selfishness (Morgan, 2011 p. 575-800). Given the modern era, Hobbes views of the state of nature and government seem antiquated; no longer do the masses wish to be subservient to anyone man without question. Lockean principals are now the base for today’s modern, just, prosperous and free states.

While Hobbes uses Laws of Nature in his logical argument, they appear to be less universally binding compared to Locke’s. Indeed, they specifically apply in circumstances where an individual’s life feels secure. In principle however, humans are generally inclined to comply with them. Conversely, in the practical life situation, the desire for self preservation takes precedence. Hence, a civil society

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.

In Hobbes book Leviathan, he makes the natural man out to be a self obsessed monster who is only interested in his own self preservation. This would intern leave the state of nature to be consumed with war, “...because the condition of man is conditions of war of everyone against everyone”. With out the constrain of government Hobbes states “So that in the state of nature man will find three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory” (Leviathan, 76). These principles would then leave men in the state of nature, with a life that Hobbes describes as “solitary, poor nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan, 76). Over all Hobbes view on the state of nature is a materialistic world where without an “absolute sovereign” the life of man would be nothing more then the “state of war”.