John Locke And Thomas Hobbes

As per the 1948 Universal announcement of human rights, all individuals regardless of their background are all born equal before the law. This declaration made by the powerful nations and signed by all nations strong and weak that belong to the United Nations reflects the thoughts of many earlier philosophers to include the 16th & 17th Century Martin Luther, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. However, each philosopher -based on their times and experiences gave a different value to how men use their freedom and equality in presence of the other in a society, and in relation to political authority. As determinant of his freedom to act and think, the three writings focused on the will of man, the promise that shapes the social contract, and the

The story “lord of the flies’’ by William Golding, the novel correlates to the philosophical views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke was an English philosopher that surmised man's natural moral compass would point towards good, Locke's philosophical writings stated “ that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their actions. Essentially, Locke thought that our human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance. People, Locke believed, were basically good’’ ( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2). John Locke thought if people were given no rules they would make a paradise, flourishing in law, order, and structure, Thomas Hobbes believed people were naturally cruel and chaotic, with a need of a strong ruler to make decisions. Hobbes stated, “Who felt that mankind was inherently evil and required a strong central authority to ward off this inclination toward an immoral behavior, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish’’( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2 ). Thomas Hobbes believed a strong iron-fisted ruler was needed for the safety and well being of a society. The ideals of man in a natural state, follow Thomas Hobbes philosophical view represented through Jack's brutish and monarch like attitude which lead to them living in a dystopian society.

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

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.

Locke and Hobbes are both famed political philosophers whose writings have been greatly influential in the development of modern political thought. In addition, the two are similar in that both refer to a “state of nature” in which man exists without government, and both speak of risks in this state. However, while both speak of the dangers of a state of nature, Hobbes is more pessimistic, whereas Locke speaks of the potential benefits. In addition, Hobbes speaks of states of nature theoretically, whereas Locke points out examples where they exist.

Two of the most prominent figures in social contract theory, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke established many of the founding ideals that contemporary Liberalism is based on. While the shared many similar positions, there are some key distinctions to be made between the arguments Hobbes and Locke make in Leviathan and Second Treatise of Civil Government, respectively. In this paper I will argue the differences between how each of them viewed the right of the subjects to revolt from the sovereign.

Since there is this constant struggle to get what you want, protect what you already have, and attain power and glory, all men are continuously in a state of what Hobbes deems war. It is a civil war because there isn’t a common power to rule everyone as every man is for himself. This perpetual civil war makes it pretty much impossible for anyone to function productively let alone make any kind of developments whatsoever. This chaotic state is what Hobbes calls the ‘state of nature’:

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are often viewed as opposites, great philosophers who disagreed vehemently on the nature and power of government, as well as the state of nature from which government sprung. Hobbes’ Leviathan makes the case for absolute monarchy, while Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argues for a more limited, more representative society. However, though they differ on certain key points, the governments envisioned by both philosophers are far more alike than they initially appear. Though Hobbes and Locke disagree as to the duration of the social contract, they largely agree in both the powers it grants to a sovereign and the state of nature that compels its creation.

Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race

Thomas Hobbes was a divisive figure in his day and remains so up to today. Hobbes’s masterpiece, Leviathan, offended his contemporary thinkers with the implications of his view of human nature and his theology. From this pessimistic view of the natural state of man, Hobbes derives a social contract in order to avoid civil war and violence among men. Hobbes views his work as laying out the moral framework for a stable state. In reality, Hobbes was misconstruing a social contract that greatly benefited the state based on a misunderstanding of civil society and the nature and morality of man.

Hobbes argues that man by nature is incapable of doing good, and thus a state's role is to govern an unruly community. By utilising Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government and Hobbes' Leviathan, this essay aims to explore the two theorists' approaches to human nature, and how their understandings help shape their beliefs on the formation and role of the state. In order to understand John Locke's point of view on the concept of human nature and its effects on the formation and role of the state, it is imperative to understand his attitude towards human nature within the state of nature. In his work Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke describes humans within a state of nature in a state of equality, 'in which no-one has more power and authority than anyone else' (Locke p.3).

Thomas Aquinas can be best described as a merge of Aristotelianism eudaimonism and Christian theology. He is known for blending these two subjects, although he did not directly accept every notion that Aristotle believed in. Theology’s primary interest in a person is the principle of his actions, according to Hobbes. To judge these actions, he considers 3 topics: the object, the intention, and the circumstances that make up the three "sources" of the morality of human acts. The object chosen is a good toward which the will guides itself, it is the matter of a human feat. The object chosen morally specifies the act, and is judged if it is within the true good. Unbiased criterions of morality express the balanced order of good and evil, indicated

In the reading, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes discusses what human existence is in the state of nature and the state of war. As it is described, the state of nature refers to how men were made equal in the faculties of the body and mind. To quote, “As though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himself, as well as he.” Here, Hobbes is explaining his opinion on the meaning of the “state of nature” explaining that even though one may have a strength compared to another, it all is balanced out in the end. Each of us have our individual flaws and strength that constitute our character. Hobbes also notes, how humans inherently have a state of greed and savagery. The state of war in human existence is also examined in this article. Hobbes states, “And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way

John Locke (1632-1704) and William Godwin (1756-1836) were both English philosophers. Locke and Godwin discuss their views on the origin, purpose as well as extent of authority of a government in their publications. Locke felt that government originated from a social contract and advocated governments which respected their citizens while Godwin saw any form of government as a form of evil thus he advocated self-government and believed that having no government was the ideal state but in the event of being under a government, minimal authority should be exercised. This essay discusses the difference in their views and I will pay attention to the extent of government authority.

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes paints a grim picture about man’s natural state. Famously characterized as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short (Hobbes 89),” man’s life is chaotic. The state of nature, Hobbes insists, is a “state of warre(Hobbes 88)” which pits men against men. Man naturally aims for felicity, defined as “continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desire, that is to say, continual prospering (Hobbes 46).” People think of their own interests and their pursuits of said interests may put them into conflict with another, in which violent war may emerge. Man, thus, lives in a state of constant fear.