Human Rights

Hobbes always found ways working for many affluent and elegant families. Hobbes joined together where activists of the king, members of the parliament and other rich landowners were discussed, and his knowledgeable aptitude brought him closer to power through that benefit (“John Locke: Biography.”) Without a strong government, Hobbes claims, the people will be left alone in a disorganized society (“John Locke: Biography.”) If an individual could do as they please it would lead to violence and conflict. To escape the idea of a chaotic nation, the people instead agreed to a social contract. Hobbes believed a society populated under a sovereign authority must be able to surrender their natural rights in exchange for protection. According to the Declaration of Independence, which states that all men have the right of liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness. Hobbes thought life was the most importance and government should protect your well being. This is prebeavent to the constitution when it included the bill of rights. The bill of rights protected every individual’s freedom, the document contained ten amendments dedicated to preserving citizen’s

Hobbes states that with this singular rule to abide leads to three characteristics of outcome. That man first looks to invade and conquer through competition. He will look to go to war with anyone that gets in the way of a successful end. “Man is enemy to every man..(therefore) men live without other security” (Hobbes, 1994, page 76). The need to define man as a savage individual leads Hobbes to the Laws of Nature, and will help define the need authorizing an absolute sovereignty.

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

Locke seems to build upon Hobbes' ideals describing within the law of Nature, all men are equal and are in a state of perfect freedom to order their own actions. However, it seems Locke clearly understands mans desire for more and temptation to violate human rights of others for personal gain and therefore, inevitable disputes in which life, liberty, and property are in question, laws are established to protect and uphold ones rights. Locke divulges further by stating the law of nature confirms every one has a right to punish transgressors of law to such a degree in which it may hinder violations, preserve the innocent and restrain offenders (Newton, 2004). This is where Locke separates himself from Hobbes theories. Locke concedes punishment only to a degree whereas will hinder a transgressor and only restrain an offender. This should not be confused with Hobbes philosophy of an individual having the right to pass judgement and decide a transgressors fate, once a perceived threat has been subdued. Locke's philosophy seems to indicate a vital importance to exhibit reason and tolerance; a law of morals, unlike Thomas Hobbes philosophical view of do as you please because it is your natural right. John Locke's law of morals set forth Thomas Jefferson's theory of revolution.

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

Hobbes believed that people should not possess any rights, because if we did, chaos would be created. Chaos would come afloat because humans are greedy, selfish and self-interested, making us unable to think of anyone else but ourselves. Our responsibilities would be to simply follow the “ king’s” rules, or in a society like ours, simply follow the laws. Ultimately in Hobbes's ideal society people would have no freedom and one responsibility, with the exception of the king who is in charge of keeping order; thus making his/her rights and responsibilities flexible. He thought this was because, during the English revolution, the chaos was created because people opposed the leader, and instead disagreed with him and his ruling

John Locke believed that natural rights were essential to an individual’s life. “... life, liberty and property existed in the state of nature and could never be taken away or even voluntarily given up,” he argued against Hobbes’ opinion, on the people laying down their natural rights of freedom to a single ruler. He deduced that these natural rights were impossible to surrender because they came with human nature. With the idea that individuals had both the right and the responsibility to preserve their own lives with the resources they had.

In conclusion, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both had different views on government. Locke believed that people should have rights while Hobbes believed otherwise. John Locke’s views were more effective that

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

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both share the common vision of the role of a social contract to maintain order in a state. However, their philosophies were cognizant of a sharp contrasting concept of human nature. This essay aims to compare and contrast the social contracts of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in respect to their definition of natural law. This essay will first analyze the pessimistic Hobbesian approach to the state of nature, the inherit optimistic approach of Locke, and then observe how their definitions directly affect their social contract.

One objection to Hobbes’ theory of freedom in the state of nature is the idea of bringing others into your power, reasoning that we are not made for one another’s uses and may not, as Locke states, “impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another” (sec. 6). Locke writes that all men have no more power or jurisdiction than the next; that all men are “promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties” (sec. 4). Even with regards to our mental capabilities we are given an even greater equality. While some men receive formal educations and are educated in science, arts or math, all men gain prudence.

Hobbes’s idea that the natural rights that Locke speaks on are not needed or true is distorted and would need more information to back such an idea. Life, liberty, and property are the natural rights’ John Locke created. He felt as if those are three rights just like our unalienable rights from the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) that no one should be able to control or take away from us without probable cause. With that being said, I feel like if Hobbes is saying we don’t need natural rights he’s practically saying we don’t need our unalienable rights, meaning he doesn’t agree with the Declaration of Independence. The only thing that’s changed is the fact that with natural rights we acquired the right to own our own property and protect it

Locke and Hobbes are renowned philosophical personalities whose works have had a preponderant influence on the development of modern

In this essay, the contrasting ideas of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on liberty will be discussed and critically analyzed.

Human rights are universal rights that we are entitled to. It is a freedom that is guaranteed based on the principle of respect for an individual. As mentioned in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are a “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all member of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world” (Kent, page 80). When asked what our rights are, we tend to get different answers and meanings. Some people recite the rights that they know; but let’s face it, not everyone knows all of the rights that they truly have. The rights we have consist of many things such as the right of having an adequate food supply. The right to