Differences Of John Locke And Thomas Hobbes

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, is regarded as one of a handful of truly great political philosophers, Hobbes is famous for his early and the elaborate development of the social contract theory. This was the method of justifying political principles or arrangements by appeal, “to the agreement that would be made among suitably situated rational, free, and equal persons” (). Hobbes believed that the only true and correct form of government was the absolute monarchy that was on order to be strong enough to hold humanity’s

Through this, complete power should be vested in one king, and the people who gave him this power need to trust and abide by him at all times. They are not to rebel, because rebellion would lead them back to the chaos which they were trying escape . Basically, Hobbes’s ideal state had rights against the people, because it possessed all the sovereignty,and the people

Hobbes, on the other hand, does not foresee this case but only seems capable of enforcing a strong power. At this point, it is pertinent to point out the ambiguity that Locke shows in his "state of war," a state that is generated when natural law is placated by the willpower of certain men. The fundamental difference between Locke and Hobbes lies therefore in the conception of man in the state of nature; one sees him as a wolf for other men, and the other sees him as a born follower of the precepts of natural law until it is corrupted by their passions or by the actions of other men. The solution in both cases is to seek a reliable external power that limits the freedom of people and eliminate the "state of war." Unlike Hobbes, for Locke, the state of nature is not identified with the state of war. On the contrary, the state of war constitutes a violation, a degeneration of the state of nature, through the imposition of force in the absence of any right; a devaluation of what the state of nature must

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’

Human nature is a cruel mistress that depending on a person’s view on the world can be really on either ok or really bad. In only isolated situations does human nature lead people to do true good while in general human nature leads to bad decisions and equally bad results. Philosophers have all written about human nature in their commonwealths as well as in their imagined states of nature. Thomas Hobbes in his book, Levithan, and John Locke in his second treatise in his book, Two Treatises on Government, both talk extensively about human nature.The pair take two different approaches to explaining human nature. Hobbes argues that human nature is horrific which in turn makes the state of nature war in which people fear death and thus seek a covenant with a strong government to protect them from themselves. Locke, on the other hand, believes that human nature is not that bad and that people can live peacefully but eventually sign a contract to obtain a more comfortable life. Despite the fact that the two take very different stances on human nature, the true essence of human nature is a balanced mix of their two beliefs in which humans are not wholly bad but they still seek government to ensure their survival. This overall means that humans have the capacity to coexist but also realize that the self-governance is an ideal that they cannot match.

His opinion of human nature was low. In Leviathan, Hobbes portrays humans as selfish, unsocial creatures driven by only two need, survival and personal gain. Therefore, human life is characterized by “constant struggle, strife, and war” with individuals against one another in a battle for self preservation . Hobbes claimed that there was “a general inclination of all [human]kind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death.” Therefore, Hobbes concludes that because of the selfishness of humans, they have no capacity of self government. Locke view humans is a different perspective. Locke developed his own philosophy, which is referred to as tabula rosa. Put simply, this refers to the idea that the human mind at birth is a blank slate without rules for processing data. Data is accumulated in the mind as the rules of processing data are formed. According to Locke, these rules are formed solely on a person’s sensory experience, therefore, Locke will argue that a person is neither good nor evil at birth, it is the summation of their experiences that determine the person that they become. That being said, humans can be educated to an inclination of good rather than evil. As a result, “the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all [human]kind, who will but consult it, that being

	Unlike Hobbes, whose laws of nature have to deal with man’s preserving of his own life, Locke chooses to apply the term to the idea of reason, by saying that if man reasons about the fundamental concerns that government arises to protect life and property, man can come to certain natural conclusions about how they should be protected.

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

The state of nature is the idea of life without society, government, state, or laws. John Locke and Hobbes both agree that the state of nature is equivalent to a state of perfect freedom and equality, although they both understand these terms differently. Hobbes argues that equality leads to inequality in the state of nature. Inequality arises from the idea of man having the right to pursue their self-interest, with no duties to each other. Without duties to each other when, “Any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (Hobbes 184). In the Hobbesian natural state, man is made up of diffidence and lives with no security other than what he can provide himself (Hobbes 185). By virtue, men will enter a continuous state of war for self-preservation because it is man’s natural right to act on what he thinks is necessary to protect himself.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were two main political philosophers during the seventeenth century. Hobbes is largely known for his writing of the “Leviathan”, and Locke for authoring "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." Included in their essays, both men discuss the purpose and structure of government, natural law, and the characteristics of man in and out of the state of nature. The two men's opinion of man vary widely. Hobbes sees man as being evil, whereas Locke views man in a much more optimistic light. While in the state of nature and under natural law, they both agree that man is equal. However, their ideas of natural law differ

Hobbes and Locke Essay Thomas Hobbes and John Locke varied in philosophical theories and period as well as in tendencies of man, with Hobbes' perspective being noteworthy more skeptical than that of Locke. What they both offer in comparison are their views on religion with Christianity specifically. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political thinkers who are acclaimed for their speculations about the development of the general public and examining man in his natural state. Hobbes and Locke were likewise well known for declaring their ideas on common law, the state of government and which government suited individuals the best.

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.

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

Thomas Hobbes born in 1588, was an English political theorist who believed in Monarchy. Hobbes felt that humans, by nature were inherently selfish beings. During the English Civil war, he expressed the need for an absolute ruler. Like how a man has control over his household. To Hobbes, “without an absolute ruler people would kill each other” (Lawrence Smith Lecture). Due to humans being inherently selfish, they would risk the commonwealth of the community for themselves. This would likely cause complications in society and the social disorder. Hobbes conveyed that, “laws make people behave as civilized people” and without them, people