Hobbes Vs Locke

John Locke did not view political unrest or even violent revolution as bad things since he believed that every person has the right to renegotiate and speak up. He saw the human nature as reasonably safe since he claims that human’s mind begins as a blank slate. Locke said, “ All ideas come from sensation or reflection.” (Of ideas). He believed that ideas come from two things. First is sensation, and that is by sensing particular objects, which convey into the mind several distinct perceptions. Second is reflection, which

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

Hobbes believed that people each have their own ideas of right and wrong, and that there is no way to tell if a person’s version of right and wrong is universally right or wrong. Practically, that each person will create their own rationalization and will even kill another person for physical safety or securing

Hobbes chose to examine the political society and broke it down to its basic parts of individual men. He understood the nature of man and thus was able to further examine the forces that drive humanity and came to understand the real role of politics in our lives rather than the role predetermined by the elite, who dictate what is good for man. Hobbes sought to answer an overall question what can be said about the overall nature of man?

Influential philosophers were not uncommon in the seventeenth century. Two British political thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, though opposite in many ways, both had one shared legacy: both men greatly influenced the politicians of America and laid a foundation of what would one day become the American government. While both men did some heavily influencing, they too witnessed events that forged their worldviews. Hobbes began writing after the English Civil War where King Charles I was beheaded, and the civil government came to an end. It was then that Hobbes concluded that humans do not possess the capabilities to live at peace with one another. Locke wrote considering the Glorious and Bloodless Revolution where King James II of England was ousted and there was no considerable violence. When learning about their theories on government, it is crucial to consider these factors to understand the context and reasoning behind them.

John Locke, view on natural laws and the human nature was quite simple his philosophy states that all humans must simple live by the natural law. His approach was based on ethics and not obligation, it is an individual’s right to preserve themselves to reach his own good, and as well have the opportunity as they wish. Locke believed that the humans was happy for the most part that there is peace in the heart

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.

Hobbes believes that society is not a natural thing in human nature; that every man cares about himself and in a state of nature all men have a “desire and will to hurt.” Since he believes society isn’t natural, the idea of a city, let alone a perfect city, is unnatural for his ideas. He would be disgusted by the idea that a society could have a perfect city. He would see this city as a bunch of buildings that each man has taken a claim to, and therefore is his, but is also everyone's. He would, however, enjoy the sprouting vegetation throughout the buildings, resembling a reversion back to a more natural state.

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.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are philosophers best known for their findings on modern political science. Thomas Hobbes is a rationalist who is best known for his famous book, Leviathan, which argues for a social contract that will establish a peace that can be achieved by the Commonwealth. John Locke another well-known philosopher for his focus on his arguments on individual rights, a strong government, and for a dual social contract between the people and the government. Although these two philosophers speak of the law of nature and the role of nature impressively, both men differ in their arguments in contrast to one another. First, Thomas Hobbes argues the idea that state of nature is a state of war.

I agree with Locke more than Hobbes. According to Hobbes, humans want power and they fear each other, whereas Locke says that humans have good nature and can get along by using “reason”. Hobbes also believed that people needed a strong dictator to control them. He thought that people would live isolated and poor lives. I don’t agree with this. I believe that most people want to control their own lives and want to be left alone. Also, if the strong ruler has the same desires for power and fear of others as Hobbes says other people have, the ruler could be cruel and unjust. Locke on the other hand, believed that rulers were granted power by their subjects and served their subjects by protecting their natural rights.

Hobbes believed that in nature people had to do whatever was necessary to survive and that even if living together, people were still likely to fight. His view of people was dark and most likely due to the horrors of a series of political schemes and armed conflicts he had seen during the English Civil War. He believed that a contract was necessary. Hobbes felt that people were not capable of living in a democratic society. Instead, a single dominant ruler was needed, and if everyone did their part, then the community would function smoothly. Hobbes’ theory is unlike Locke and Rousseau’s. He believed that once the people gave power to the government, the people gave up the right to that power. It would essentially be the cost of the safety the people were seeking.

Compare and contrast Hobbes’s and Locke’s views of the state of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society. Whose view is the more plausible? Why?

Through time, many philosophers have given their own definition of men in the State of Nature. The main philosophers to take up their differing meaning were Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, and even Shelley. Hobbes viewed men as violent in their nature, which would inevitably lead to their own downfall. Years after Hobbes first created his theory, Jean-Jacques Rousseau challenged his views by saying that humans are born into the world, and they are neither good or bad, it is their experiences in society that will shape who they are. While these two have similarities, another philosopher named John Locke came along and claimed that humans are the creatures of God. While all three of these ideas differ, they are all accepted. It wasn’t until Mary Shelley

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