Difference Between John Lock And Karl Marx

What is the perfect balance between freedom and order? Not only is it a question American society has been asking itself since its creation but also a question humanity has yet to answer. In all likelihood such a perfect balance will never be achieved but doesn’t mean people won’t strive for such perfection. Before delving on deeper one must first ask, ‘what is order?’ Order is the limitation of freedom; limitation of freedom is necessary, to an extent, to uphold society. Human society has two extremes at each end of its spectrum, anarchy and tyranny. Two complete opposites, anarchy is pure freedom and tyranny is the ultimate repression of freedom. In the middle

Locke’s idea of the state of nature men had kept their promises and honoured their obligations. In locke’s first treatise he argued that there was no divine right for monarchs, because God didn't put men above others and therefore everyone was equal. In his second treatise he strikes Hobbes and speaks his thought on the state of nature “man is free and in this condition all men equal”. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free to order their actions, of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the of the law of nature. This idea influenced him to believe that human nature is represented by reason and tolerance the reasoning was "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it", and that law is the reason. Much different than Hobbes, who had believed people were selfish and needed to be

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.

Hobbes believes that in the state of nature, man has no power to control others, and because of this, everyone is aggressive towards one another, as no one can trust another. Because of this, social order is necessary to give man incentive towards cooperation and trust, by selling your individual rights to freedom in order to gain social rights of security and safety. The role of the social order is to combat man’s aggressiveness, man’s power to hurt one another and direct this towards positive social ends instead of destructive.

If a power is present which is not strong enough for a man’s security, man will call on his strengths to secure himself from other men. It was clear to Hobbes, that men must group themselves together, with a leader capable of ensuring obedience of these natural laws. It is important that the group being governed is a large group because the small groups are not stable. The addition of only a few members with contrasting views to a small group, could destroy the entire community.

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.

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

Two of the most influential and celebrated modern political thinkers, Karl Marx and John Locke, have made countless insightful and compelling arguments, expressing their ideas on various conditions of the individual, state, and the interactions between the two. Marx was a German political thinker who was best known for his works with idea of communism and social class divisions. Locke was an English philosopher famous for his social contract and is known as the Father of Liberalism (CITE). Despite the paramount success these men achieved, they had radically different views on the idea of property and the description of freedom, finding only minimal similarity on their views on the right to revolt.

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

In the 18th century, a fierce debate broke out among many philosophers about the nature of the human psyche. Many argued whether humans in a state of nature were constantly at war with one another or whether these same humans were peaceful in their natural setting. From this debate, many other important philosophical arguments arose over the state of human nature. One of the most important arguments was the discussion of equality between human beings. Many authors believed that natural inequalities existed between human being. While others debated that human inequality was either negligible or completely non-existent. Within this debate, two thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith, came down with complex arguments on the equality of human beings. This essay will begin by walking through the argument of each influential thinkers. After establishing the argument of each writer the essay will then make the argument that Thomas Hobbes has a greater commitment to the idea of natural equality based off his that even though natural differences exist these are so negligible that their existence is unimportant.

In the society illustrated by John Locke, the human nature is characterized as free and independent; however, the problem with society is that it has too many small inconveniences, which could be as trivial as a tree blocking the sidewalk. To solve these problems, a legitimate government, characterized by explicit consent, checks on institutions and the right to revolt by the people, is needed. The utmost legitimate government, in comparison to Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is based on John Locke’s social contract in Second Treatise of Government because each aspect of a legitimate government protects the citizen’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Through each aspect, the people can actively participate in government to prevent the sovereign from taking advantage of their powers to further their own goals.

As I started reading the prompt, the first two names that came to my mind were Karl Marx and John Locke. Karl Marx ideas of the government and its function, property ownership and natural rights are influenced by the ideas of John Locke to some extent, be it in favor or against his ideas. John Locke believed that the government would work properly if it works according to the will of the people. Also, he mentioned that there should be a social contract which would form the basis of the government’s legitimacy, and if the government would not abide by it, then the government could be dissolved by the will of the people. Thus, he demanded the government to be fair and unbiased in order for it to be maintained for a long time. Karl Marx idea of

In both theories of human nature by Karl Marx and Thomas Hobbes respectfully, each provide their own perspective on the fundamental point of human nature. Marx makes the argument that that humans are inherently cooperative and the capitalist system creates a state of nature where humans are competitive. In opposition to Marx’ argument, Hobbes may say that humans are inherently competitive and the social contract is what makes humans cooperate within the capitalist system. In response, Marx might say that the social contract is redundant because the social contract has no effect on the competition that resembles the state of nature within the capitalist system.

This essay argues that the propositions put forth by Karl Marx in his political essay “Estranged Labour” presents a nuanced and logically sounder theory behind his concept of human nature than Hobbes does in his essay “The natural condition of Mankind”. Marx’s perception was that man’s labour is intrinsically a part of his human nature, and the alienation of this labour drastically negates what it means to be man. Whereas Thomas Hobbes presents that man’s natural state is one of conflict, and that this conflict can only be overcome through rules set forth by the sovereign, only then can men live in peace with each other.

In "Hobbes, Stirner, & Authority," Paul Rowland (1998) argues that while Thomas Hobbes and Max Stirner are diametrically opposed in their views of how society should be run, each philosopher sees man as a "conscious egoist" driven by his own desires (p. 25). Yet, where Hobbes argues that a governing person is needed to regulate the masses, Stirner contends that people should be endowed with the right to form their own "union of egoists," comprised of like-minded individuals (Rowlandson, 1998, p. 26). Rowland's chief argument is that Hobbes's model is more appropriate in theory and practice, since Rowland's model offers no protection against chaos. Certainly, Rowland is correct that Stirner's model runs the risk of succumbing to anarchy. However, Stirner's theory is in fact more appropriate because it is more psychologically astute and understands that people's intellectual liberty is stifled when they are regulated by an authority figure that is not necessarily of their choosing.