Comparing Thomas Hobbes And John Locke

Locke’s thought on having a king, laws, and a civil society under a social contract was so all men can enjoy and protect their rights. Where all men obtain the right to life, all humans have the right to live and life shouldn't be taken away from another human being. The right to liberty, protecting an individual's freedom and unreasonable detention. The right to property, a citizen in which Locke thought a human's labour was his own, anything created or made should remain that individuals as well and the right to rebel against unjust rulers and laws.

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

As for the sovereignty philosophy that Hobbes came up with was that power should reside in the state or ruler. The sovereign representative or the ruler was to provide safety for the people and to conduct this in a manner that does not harm the people or their well-being. Ultimately Hobbes supported government and stability in government for the well-being of the citizens. In conclusion, Hobbes and Locke both stated that cooperation between government and its citizens was necessary.

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 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

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.

If a person commits a crime, the people have a right to punish him. If one man kills another man's sheep, then the people have the right to kill one of his sheep, without commiting a crime.Locke's theories of government greatly oppose those of Thomas Hobbes, a political philospher who believes in a government headed by an absolute monarch, who has complete control over the entire society. Hobbes says that man is evil, so it is better to give up power to one individual, so that the evil in the society is limited.

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

Where Locke and Hobbes most obviously split is the issue of whether a social contract can be constructed to bind future generations. Hobbes believes in a self-perpetuating sovereign, one where “the disposing of the Successor, is alwaies left to the Judgment and Will of the present Possessor” (Hobbes 249). This, notably, is one rare area where Hobbes admits that democracies may have an advantage over his preferred monarchical system, as in a democracy “questions of the right of Succession, have in that forme of Government no place at all” (248). Hobbes still prefers monarchy for a variety of reasons, and so settles on the solution of providing several suggestions to ensure a peaceful succession, even in the

Locke believed that people are willing to unite under a form of government to preserve their lives, liberty, and estate. Since natural law is already good, government not only preserves natural law, but also works to enhance it.

The key differences in the views of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on the purpose of government lie within their contrasting views of the natural human state. Hobbes believed that people are naturally selfish, only acting in their own best interest, while Locke believed that people are naturally good, meaning that they can be trusted to govern themselves. Due to their differing beliefs regarding innate human state, their ideas regarding government varied greatly -- the two men were practically opposites. Hobbes believed that, due to their inborn selfish nature, people could not be trusted with democratic rule. Due to this fact, Hobbes argued for absolute authority to be given to one man, like a king. Hobbes believed that government is meant to

Through assessing both monarchy and democracy from both perspectives of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, one can see that democracy creates the most beneficial outcome. Hobbes had a pessimistic view of people. He believed humans were selfish, doing anything to further their own position in life. Hobbes believed in an absolute monarchy, a government that gave all the power to a king or queen. Even though he distrusted democracy, he believed that a diverse group of representatives present the problems of the common people would prevent a king from being unfair and cruel. Today, many people associate the ideals Locke adopts with democracy. Although, in Locke’s book, Second Treatise of Government, he did not solely focus on democracy. He listed many types of government, not favoring any. He believed that as long as they adhere to his rules, they remain valid.

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.