Personal Identity: John Locke And David Hume

The natural behavior of man, whether they are good or bad, has been a disputed topic for centuries. John Locke and Thoman Hobbes, two influential enlightenment philosophers, lead this argument, even after their death. Locke believed in the natural goodness and equality of man, whereas Hobbes believed humans were naturally selfish and cruel (Zint). While Locke’s philosophy seems more desirable, Hobbes 's thoughts have much more evidence, namely in the corruption of leaders. These men have absolute power and can change the society however they please, yet more often than not, they squander their public and entrusted power on personal gains, as per the definition of corruption. Ironically, a perfect example of such wasted power would be the popes of the Roman Catholic Church, who were appointed out of pure religious intentions, many of whom did not fulfill their religious responsibilities. The papacy in Europe has a long history of corruption, bringing unholy men to power solely for their familial status and wealth, beginning in the 11th century with Pope Benedict IX, who sold the papacy on numerous occasions, and continuing through the Renaissance, with Alexander VI, whose goals served only his family, and Leo X, who was a very lavish, uncontrollable spender.

In every civilization, there should be a set way of life and guidelines to follow. There should also be a ruler or someone in charge. The ruler should follow a specific way or procedure in order to rule. There should also be rules that the people under the ruler need to obey. The governing body of a nation, state, or community is classified as a government. In order to run a proper political system, one must know how to balance and consider the nature of humankind and their rights. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were both political philosophers who developed theories about how the government should work. They set up their theories around The Natural Law and the Social Contract Theory. Although John Locke and Thomas Hobbes had a similar goal, their beliefs and opinions were definitely not the same.

The implementation of a society in which all are guaranteed equal rights has never come to fruition. Through political treatise, formulated essay’s, and prototypical society 's, many have attempted to recreate the works of famed philosophers: John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Disagreeing regarding the innate goodness of humans, both understand that for a political society to function properly, humans must be given a society in which prosperity is the goal. Therefore, underlying the key theme that cooperation amongst all men is key in progressing the society forward. Many nations and world leaders have inferred these core beliefs and have attempted to recreate them, be it decreed in the United States Declaration of Independence or the 1977 Soviet Union Constitution. Aside from the blatant plagiarism by the founding fathers of both nations (and many others), Locke and Rousseau do stress two key separate points of view regarding how cooperation amongst men is key in progressing a society forward. Locke asserts that by having all men as enforcers of the state of nature it helps in bettering the society by providing it with a more competent and productive populous, and Rousseau believes that since we are inherently good we should be left to our own devices, that through collective independence comes strength. Both views aim to better the lives of many, however, how that task is accomplished ranges drastically.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both hypothesized about the state of nature and how humans behave in it. Their ideas of the state of nature are antithetical in that Hobbes looked at humans as selfish beings that have no respect for each other or their possessions, while Locke thought humans would work cooperatively and respect the belongings of one another. These hypotheses beg the question “what would a state of nature look like in today’s society, and would it more closely resemble what Hobbes imagined or what Locke imagined?” If you look at events where there was a loss of government and social infrastructure, both Hobbesian and Lockean ideas can be seen. Predominately, the predictions of Hobbes seem to prevail in the

An emergence from the state of nature to civilization drives man to ponder the role of government in his life. Democracy, defined broadly as an institution in which citizens in some capacity determine the actions of the commonwealth, has drawn both praise and criticism. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and John-Jacques Rousseau all present differing opinions of democracy in their respective texts. While Hobbes rejects the notion based on man’s inability to think of others, Locke and Rousseau both engage it within their theories to varying extents while simultaneously offering doubt about the reality of it.

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.

Many scholars consider Thomas Hobbes and John Locke to be the most influential political philosophers of the classical liberal viewpoint, as they both believed that a government should exist, but that it should exist only for the purpose of preventing members of society from harming each other, not from harming themselves, therefore maximizing liberty in society. Although they agreed on the general purpose of government, which today would be a libertarian ideology, one critical issue on which they disagreed was on the nature of rights. In Hobbes’ view, people have no natural or inherent rights, and that in a state of nature, people would have no obligation to respect the rights of others. As a result, Hobbes argues that rights descend

The political world is one that impacts nearly every aspect of our day-to-day lives. Whether it be through its enforcement of laws, protection of the public, or use of taxpayer-raised monies to carry out its myriad tasks. The government always makes a mark on its people. The actions of the government, while frequently ridiculed or vilified, are the results of the people themselves, operating within our system of government. So while many people may disapprove of the job Congress is doing or the direction the president is leading us in, the status quo remains the same. This is because our current state of affairs has been determined as a norm and agreed to by a majority. The following pages show how modern social contract theory especially

From the ancient Greek city-state of Athens and Sparta to the United States, societies and civilizations have been the cornerstone of human history. However, the formation of these concepts do not simply appear but must instead be created. Thus the concept of a ‘Social Contract’ was formed by philosophers as a means to better understand why individuals would come together to form a society. Two philosophers, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, give their respective opinions on what is the role and purpose of a “Social Contact’ in their works the “Second Treatise on Government” and “Of the Social Contract”.

John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were both Enlightenment thinkers concerned with the liberties of men. This concern, along with the fact they both believed all men are born into the state of natural equally, induced them to write works concerning a social contract between men. Locke and Rousseau discussed their ideas in the Two Treatises of Government and The Social Contract respectively. Their concerns about liberty in the state of nature led them to generate different accounts of the social contract because Locke’s belief that men form a society to protect their private property led him to believe the power should be placed in the commonwealth itself while Rousseau’s belief that men join a society for the communal benefit received led him to believe the power should be placed in the general will of the people. The differences in their views are evident in what they believe the best form of government is for a society and the citizen’s role in a society.

By comparing the two readings assigned one can discuss the differences in political theories expressed by both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. In, Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, and in, The Second Treatise of Government, by John Locke different theories of political legitimacy and definitions of the state of nature are described. The following paragraphs analyze multiple different points that are imperative to understanding these political theories.

1. While both John Locke and Jacques Rousseau trusted that each ought to be free and that nobody ought to need to surrender his/her natural rights to a lord, both contrasted on what this situation ought to resemble. Locke had confidence in restricted, delegate government. However, Rousseau had faith in direct government by the general population. The contrasts between John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau need to do as much with dispositions as with frameworks. Both of them upheld political radicalism and religious resistance; however their originations of human instinct contrasted. Rousseau feels that people are inalienably great and that human advancement and customary educating are adulterating impacts. He sees feelings and assumptions as more critical that Locke does. (Elahi) Both Locke and Rousseau concur that the primary route for a social contract to safeguard the privileges of the General Will is for finished inclusion. Rousseau demands the individuals who don 't join the settlement are oblivious to the points of interest of a social contract. These maniacs must be compelled to see the light of the social contract and in this way forced to be free. In a more brutal perspective, Locke sees the inability to join the social get an assault on the safeguarding of humanity and this violator ought to rebuff. That is because the individuals, who abuse the particular law, disregard the safeguarding of humankind. There is a considerable measure of

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both political theorist’s that theorized the way a political society should be. Hobbes was the precursor of modern totalitarianism, and Locke was the precursor for classical liberalism. While both theorist’s shared similar views of justice, they also had disagreements of others. For Hobbes, justice is purely the creation of sovereign, while Locke views justice as setting the limits and providing the direction for civic justice. Lock has the better view for a just society because he prefers a classical liberalism aspect, valuing the freedom of individuals.

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.

Throughout life, there are many different beliefs and ideas on how all of us that are living now got us to where we are today. There are many different religions, morals, insights, and beliefs from where humanity and where we the people evolved from. More than less, people in our society are extremely interested in the foundation of how and where all of our social relationships are formed. There are many different factors that form into our belief systems and we believe things either because we have solid proof of what we want to believe in, or it is just that we are all gullible. A question that I continuously ask not only to myself but to others is, what is it about society as a whole that is exceedingly interesting? Also, what is it that