Comparing Thomas Hobbes And John Locke

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

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a

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.

Many philosophers believe that a correct government can make a strong society. However, these philosophers do not agree on what form of government is the most “correct”. English philosopher John Locke believed that Man is inherently moral and that the purpose for government is to grant the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to its people. Another philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, however, held the belief that mankind is naturally evil and that society needs an absolute central authority to contain this evilness and grant its people with the common protection. Hobbes believes that in a state of nature, when there are no rules and everyone is granted equal power, the inherent evil impulses of Man are exposed. One

These intellectuals attempted to generate an explanation for the purpose of government and expressed their ideal political structure to find a solution to the inequalities in the distribution of power. The changing intellectual and social perceptions of the human condition led to new insights and questions of the way in which humans were ruled: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” (Rousseau 2). This conveys The Philosophe belief that liberty is lost when political rule is too strict, to the point where one is unable to truly live. John Locke deduced in his two Treatises on Government that humans have natural born rights to life, liberty and property (“Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau on Government”). His ideal government protected these natural rights and permitted the freedom of its people to conduct their lives in a way that they see as best fit. He believed that the government existed to serve the people’s will, thus the power laid in the majority (“Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau on Government”). Thomas Hobbes had an opposing view to that of Locke’s government. Hobbes advocated for the monarchy and absolutism, as this form provides strong political stability (Elahi 2). He believed that the people were indebted to the government and protected by the ruler, only if they surrendered their rights and freedoms under a social contract (Elahi 3). Jean

The philosophy of John Locke Creates a more stable society, than the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, Because, John Locke held people to a high standard and said "they were logical enough to govern themselves,(Enlightenment). He identified three natural rights life, library, property. John Locke is an physician, and also a writer, he wrote many writings that influenced future leads like Thomas Jefferson, and Locke mostly know as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers. Locke disagreed with Hobbes and absolutism and favored constitutional monarchy, which is where the kings power is limited and the people are represented by a legislature. With the philosophy of Locke's, the people will have more say and be more happy because instead

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

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.

The ideas presented by Hobbes and Locke are often in opposition. Hobbes views humanity much more pessimistically; viewing men as evil according to natural law and government a way to eliminate natural law. Locke takes a much more optimistic stance; viewing government a means to preserve the state of nature and enhance it as men are naturally peaceful and equal. Discarding the differences in ideology, their ideas were radical for their time. The interest they took in natural law, man's natural characteristics, and the role of government, provided inspiration for, and was the focus of many literary works for the future.

Unlike Hobbes, the purpose of Locke’s government was to protect individual liberties and rights as he believed that everybody should be treated equally. People under his government possessed the right to revolt against an abusive government unlike in Hobbes viewpoint, where people had no say because they are wicked and

John Locke to me will forever be the MORE correct philosopher out of these two. First and foremost because the government I grew up in and was taught to believe in whole-heartedly is based more on Sir John Locke’s ideas and theories than it is on Thomas Hobbes’s. I say that now to get it out of the way so I can move on to more intelligible and thought provoking facts and opinions behind this personal belief. To translate the messy, spider webbed, hectic thought that’s in my head in the simplest way possible, I believe it’s hard to make either type of government work. It’s just especially hard to make an absolute monarch/”one man show” work. A monarch is basically a gamble because you have no say in who’s the leader. You just have to hope that the past leader was a half-ass decent parent who raised a child to have a good head on his/her shoulders and won’t drive the entire country into the ground. Now the beliefs and theories that John Locke had listed in his book The Two Treatises of Government state that since a government is something created by people to protect people’s rights and liberties that the people should have a say in who’s running the whole show and at least a little say in what the government does. Now, all of that is just the very basic idea of these two philosophies so of course there’s more to cover.

Both men had very strong opinions on how we as humans, and how government, should be run. My paragraph is on the views of, John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes. During the time they lived civil war raged on in Great Britain, and this was where their views on human beings developed. Thomas Hobbes originally coming from a family that strongly believed that absolute monarchy, was influenced by the English civil war. John Locke, on the other hand, believed that people should always have a say in who runs things, and also have the right to rebel against tyrants.