Comparing Thomas Hobbes And John Locke

Locke and Hobbes started with a central notion that people with similar “state of nature” would on their own accord come together as a state. Locke believed that individual would not perpetually be at war with each other. He believed humans began with a state of natural characteristics of absolute freedom with no government in site. Hobbes work differs from that of Locke’s because he felt people needed a strong central authority to ward off the inherent evil and anarchic state of man. Locke believed that within the state of nature man would have stronger morals and thus limit their actions. Locke also, credited people with the ability to do the right thing within a group. And the natural rights and civil society where Hobbes differentiated with this by believing that people had to resolve their natural rights and the their were privileges granted by the sovereign. Locke believed the relationship between citizens and government took the form of a social contract, in which in exchange for order and protections provided by institutions the citizens agree to surrender some of the freedoms within the state of nature. This was also, agreed that power of the state was not absolute but exercised according to law. If broken by the state it forfeits and the contract becomes void. This allots for the citizens of the state to have a “voice” and power for change to replace the government with moral obligation by the governed. Hobbes believed absolute power was the price man should

First, for Hobbes, the nature of nature is perpetually in a state of war. According to Hobbes, the chief reason why men given up their authority to the sovereign is to seek peace, and avoid the “fear of death. By contrast, while Locke does speak of states of war as well, for him they are a subset of the state of nature, and not the entire equation. Locke specifically states that “men living together according to reason…is properly the state of nature. But force, upon the person of another…is the state of war. Thus, by this reasoning, Locke’s state of nature is a much kinder place than Hobbes’, where man’s life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. In addition, another difference between the theories of the two men is that Hobbes speaks hypothetically of states of nature, whereas Locke points out times when state of nature actually exists. Locke believes that all rulers are in a state of nature, and governors as well. The key difference between Locke and Hobbes in this area is the specifying of the existence of a state of nature, the greater negativity of Hobbes, and Locke’s use of examples in contrast to Hobbes’

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

Hobbes’ “The Right of Nature”, or jus natural, is one’s liberty to preserve his own nature (86). The right then breaks down into liberty, the law of nature, the fundamental law of nature, and the second law of nature (as well as other in-between steps). The law of nature is “a precept… found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same....” (86). Basically, any “right of nature” stems from reason, which is common knowledge. Hobbes believes that human beings, being reasonable, will discern their right to self-preservation. He furthers his explanation of the laws with the concept of The fundamental law of nature. The fundamental law states, “every man, ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and advantages of war.” The law furthers into two parts, the first is to “seek peace, and follow it,” while the second is to, “defend ourselves”(87). Hobbes’ laws are all

Characters: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke , Thomas Jefferson John Locke: Hello,Thanks for coming to this event ,The purpose of the meeting is about the government. I think that the Best Government would be democracy because I believe that all people are born with the natural right of life liberty and property. Thomas Hobbes:No!! I do not agree with this type of government because, the basic nature of man is bad! John Locke:

Locke says we have our rights by nature, while Hobbes says that we gave up our rights to the government

To get out of the state of nature we need to retain our natural rights, the rights to liberty (self-preservation and preservation of others) and the right to property. The same rules that apply to liberty also apply to property for Locke. Property rights are prior (in principle) to government, you have a right to life and property without government. It's settling your disputes that may make it hard to do without government. The state of nature becomes the state of war when enforcement problems occur, disagreements; thus the reason for government is to preserve pre-existing rights. To get out of the state of nature government can exist only by consent and you cant consent for anyone else, unless of course they are children. There are two major elements of Locke's social contract. Phase #1 is the bare agreement to agree. People have to realize the need for government, the need for something to solve problems of the people. For Hobbes this is like a bare leap into government. For Locke, there must be societies were people agree to communicate and talk in order to unanimously agree on a government. And if someone decides that they don't want to join, well,

I agree with John Locke more than Hobbes. I agree with what John said about how humans are born naturally good, tolerant, and fairly intelligent. Hobbes has a better point about having one or a few people at most in charge.

In order to understand the role of consent and government in the commonwealths established by both Hobbes and Locke, one must first analyze their views on the state of nature and nature’s laws. According to Hobbes, a state of nature is a state of war, where life is “nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 102). Men have the liberty to use their power in whatever manner they see conducive to their survival. For example, if killing another person is conducive to one’s own survival, Hobbes argues that it is rational to do so. This liberty means that every man has a right to everything in the state of nature, furthering the violence that arises as men seek pleasure and sensual delight. Hobbes claims that this right to everything must be surrendered in order to maintain peace and prevent uncontrollable violence from ravishing society.

Human flourishing is best understood and guided by the insights into the nature of things as developed by Hobbes than Locke. In Hobbes view, all individuals are equal concerning body and mind and no one is supposed to benefit more compared to the other person and every person has the liberty and right to do whatever he deems right to protect himself from danger as long as he his guided by the law of reason. In this view, there are no injustices and personal property as there is no law. Locke argues that human beings are free to do what they want as long as their actions do not harm other people. The reason should guide them. Those who harm others should be punished (George, 2010).

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes have greatly different definitions of liberty and what comes with liberty. Locke is what I would consider a modern day pacifist. Hobbes wouldn’t be on the opposite side of the spectrum, but far enough away from Locke to not group them together. Locke uses the state of nature to vouch his points on freedom and the responsibilities that come with living in the state of nature. Hobbes uses the state of nature to give leverage to his ideas that only absolute power can defend the people from slipping into the state of nature.

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

Even though both Hobbes and Locke have compelling thoughts and opinions on human nature and government, I find Locke’s philosophies much easier to agree with. Similar to Locke, my belief on human nature is that all humans are able to be reasonable and have morals, but I do also realize that all humans do have some selfishness in them – some more than others. Unlike Hobbes, however, I do not believe that everyone is controlled by their own selfish desires. Some people might be, but the majority aren’t. This is why I believe that we should be able govern ourselves, and have a place in our government. I completely reject Hobbes’ philosophy that we should relinquish our natural rights to the government, because I believe that our natural rights

After that Hobbes goes on to say, “The life of man is solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes) He argues that nothing is unjust in the state of nature. He believes that everyone has the right to do anything he/she wants because in the state of nature, there is no right or wrong and there is no law; everyone can do everything and nothing can be unjust. He says that “ Where there is no common power, no law; where no law, no injustice.” (Hobbes)

By reading Hobbes, it was undoubtedly seen that his biggest trepidation was ending up living in a state of nature. For this reason he beliefs that the best way of avoiding state of nature is by not rebelling and obeying to the law. He described it the state of nature as “no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” . He goes on saying that anyone’s property is the common wealth’s property. It belongs to the sovereign state. He says “That every private man has an absolute Propriety in his Goods; such, as excludeth the Right of the Soveraign. Every man has indeed a Propriety that excludes the Right of every other Subject: And he has it onely from the Soveraign Power; without the protection whereof, every other man should have equall Right to the same. But if the Right of the Soveraign also be excluded, he cannot performe the office they have put him into; which is, to defend them both from forraign enemies, and from the injuries of one another; and consequently there is no longer a Common-wealth.” He claims that the State owns everything in the country and citizens are only legitimate to own as long the State finds it