Hobbes And John Locke Similarities

Both Hobbes and Locke were writers who developed philosophies on humans being naturally good or bad. Locke believed that, "Man is by nature a social animal". This humans feel compelled to live in social environments. Hobbes believed that, "Society could not exist without the power of the state". This means that society needs the higher power of the state to keep it together. Locke believed that people are naturally good, whereas Hobbes believed that people were not naturally good. Locke said that in the sense of natural law, "Humans know what is right and wrong, and are capable of knowing what is lawful and unlawful well enough to resolve conflicts". Hobbes said that the ruler is the one who defined right and wrong. The reason why Hobbes had

John Locke embraced many of the ideas presented by Hobbes in his theories on the state of nature and the rise of government. They differed however, in that Locke believed that God was the prime factor in politics. He believed that individuals were born with certain rights given not by government or society, but by God. This he said, is what gives all people equality.

In conclusion, even though both readings by Hobbes and Locke, they have the similarities of natural equality, rights and liberty. I agreed with Locke because his ideas inspired the thinking of our founding fathers of this country. Majority of his ideas outline and made the constitution and declaration of independence. His ideas of the social contract, the equality of men, property rights and etc was exclusively the reasons what our society is held on. John locked believed in natural rights. The role of individuals were believing in John Locke. They believed in Locke’s idea that the government had a responsibility to protect the citizen’s natural rights. Everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that is what I mainly

Just as we have Democrats vs. Republicans in Americans society today, back in the seventieth century they had John Locke vs. Thomas Hobbes. Both men were two of the main political philosophers of the seventieth century and had a great impact on the American government today after over 300 years. I will be discussing Hobbes and Locke’s similarities and differences on both philosophers’ perspective and impact on the American government.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were both supporters of the divergent tenets of human nature, and government in the 17th century. John Locke viewed human nature as were they lived under a government that protected the rights of the people. Thomas Hobbes published his view of the human soul has been negative, believing the only way to combat its evilness by complete control under an absolute government. The purpose of government as stated by Locke is to protect the people’s rights, and prevent us from killing each other. On the other hand Hobbes say that we need government, because men’s heart are evil and without government we would kill each other.

Two 17th century English thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had two very different and significant opinions and thoughts about human nature , and the roles of government placed within it. Thomas Hobbes was a man who believed that people were born into this world naturally cruel, greedy, and selfish. Hobbes believed only a strong government such as an absolute monarchy could ensure an orderly society with control , order, and civilisation. Locke on the other hand, had a completely antithetical and optimistic view point on the topic of human race. He believed we are born with a blank “canvas”, and are both reasonable , and moral.

“The right of nature is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life.”-Thomas Hobbes… Two strong-minded men concluded two different outlooks on the same question at hand which is,” What is the state of nature like?” Locke’s outlook on the question at hand was simply that every man is equal, no man is higher in rank then the next and every man are responsible for himself and his actions. Locke felt like if we were all, “ promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature” then no one has authority to feel above anyone else unless the Lord and/ or Master of them all should make that declaration. Hobbes, on the other hand, feels as if we are not entitled to natural rights and that the better mess of life in the state doesn’t justify the state. From the two

Both Locke and Hobbes emphasized on reason, Hobbes focused on how men could use reason to escape the state of nature and achieve peace. The basis of the laws of nature, Hobbes used to show how men could escape the brutality of the state of war was self-preservation. The laws of nature end goal were every man being able to seek peace and know the distinction between justice and injustice.

The comparison of these two men is a very interesting pair. They both share ideas that are very similar but diverge in the moments that solidify their stance on their opinion. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke is both political scientist who have made strides in the area of social contracts and share being natural law theorist also. Locke and all other natural law theorists assumed that man was by nature a social animal and there fore struck contracts with each other to secure safety among them. Hobbes assumed differently, thus his verdicts are very different from other natural law theorists. Both of these philosophers have diverging ideas on why humans band together and the appropriate reasons.

John Locke believed that people can be trusted to govern themselves, because they are naturally good. On the other hand, Thomas Hobbes believed that people are naturally selfish, and that they should give all their power to one man or one assembly, which is absolute monarchy. However, Locke believed that governments each had their own responsibilities to protect their citizens’ lives and their freedom. Despite all of their differences and beliefs, both Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two of the great biased political theorists of their time (Enlightenment Ear). Both created great philosophical texts that help to portray the role of government in a man's life, as well as their vision of man's state of nature. For Thomas Hobbes, it was wondering how a society would function without rules. As for John Locke, he felt the government should be working for the interest of the citizens. Hobbes and Locke were two great philosophers whose political views were influenced by their respective experiences, these influences were reflected on their philosophies on of human nature, the state of nature and social contract.

Seventeenth-century England gave rise to two of the greatest philosophical minds: Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Hobbes and Locke who continue to influence modern political thought, were largely shaped by England’s widespread economic, social, religious and political tensions. Locke himself was involved in intrigue against the king, which resulted in his exile to liberal Holland. Meanwhile, after witnessing the rebellion against King Charles and the ensuing violent civil war, Hobbes was forced into exile in absolutist France. The massive social unrest led Hobbes and Locke to reflect on the proper function of government. In Locke’s highly acclaimed The Second Treatise on Government and Hobbes’ Leviathan, they detail their distinct thoughts on the nature of man, man’s relationship with society and man’s relationship with the government.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke share the basic assumption that a theory based off of abstract individualism, consent, sovereignty and reason will produce a peaceful and productive society. This theory is the liberal political theory, which is the philosophy of individual rights and a limited government. Both Hobbes and Locke both center the majority of their ideas off of how people’s lives should be based off of nature rights instead of natural law. This being said, people are also subject to the moral laws set and it is ones duty to preserve his wellbeing and strive to meet his own goals but this is where Hobbes and Locke’s theories starts to differ.

Locke believes that God gives human kinds ability to reason to individuals. Therefore, individuals are capable of maintaining natural cooperation and peace in the society. According to Locke, “there are “ inconveniences” within the State of Nature but does not have the same pessimistic and cynical views that Hobbes propounds. According to Locke, The state of nature becomes chaotic hence it becomes necessary to secure the individuals’ natural rights and protect their property and liberty. Locke’s state of nature differs from that of Hobbes. Locke believes that the State of Nature is a complete and separate entity from the State of War. On the other hand, Hobbes’ State of Nature and State of War are one and the same. These different conceptions of the two philosophers give rise to how conflict is dealt with in the states. According to Locke, if an individual is a thief and attempts to rob someone, Locke believes the perpetrator should be punished because they threatened the victim’s liberty “[…] using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretense be […] he would take away my liberty, … and therefore it is lawful for me to … kill him if I can.” (Locke, 630) Locke moralizes violence and distinguishes between just violence and unjust violence. In contrast, Hobbes believes that there is no unjust or just violence since individuals are constantly in a state of war. The issue that arises from Locke’s

Hobbes and Locke wrote about the State of Nature, a state that is a precursor to any type of established and organized government. These two men came to very different conclusions about this state and their ideas would come to shape the future of Liberalism as an ideology. Hobbes, as a pioneer of some of the concepts of liberalism (although not as widely celebrated as such) laid the groundworks for concepts such as the social contract, and the State of Nature. These concepts would be instrumental in the establishment of Liberalism as an ideology although his conclusions about them would not. The reason for this is due to the writings of later philosophers like Locke who would take