In this essay I will explain who´s work agree more with. I will point out specific points to backup my opinion. I will give life experiences and things I have read and learned in the past. I hope this essay will aid in you agreeing with me. In my opinion I believe that Locke has the better idea of people than Hobes. I believe that all men are born with there right to freedom and so does Locke. After reading the two essays I found myself agreeing more with Locke than Hobes. Locke seems to believe in the good of people while Hobes believes people are wrong and have to be ruled by a higher power. Locke seems to understand what people are really here for, the good not the bad. In my lifetime I have met people like Locke and Hobes. I always find
While both men believe that the good in human nature is maintained through some higher form of governing, Locke has trust and confidence in the good of man and believes in limited monarchy, whereas Hobbes promotes a tough sovereign-led government to avoid a continuous state of war.
Their thoughts on human nature tell us that we do need government for our own well-being and so that we have stability. Locke's philosophical ideas are better represented in Robinson Crusoe. In the novel, Defoe expresses the
Summarize both thinkers view and how they are similar and different. Three quotes from each.
Basic human rights are now a universal concept, but in Locke’s time these ideas had never been heard before. Furthermore, Locke made foundational contributions to modern government systems. He advocated for the church and state to be seperated, so the church cannot control the government. Locke argued that rulers could only stay in power as long as they had the consent of the ruled. If the people were no longer pleased with the state, they had the right to rebel against the government.
James Madison strongly believed and supported increasing national power of government and that led him to establish his model known as Madison’s model. James Madison’s design to maximize liberty and still allow the government to govern is proven through the four component parts of Madison’s model. These four components include separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and republicanism. The philosophies of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes influenced Madison in a way that allowed him to have both liberty and order at the same time. John Locke believed in individual liberty and freedom from the government whilst Thomas Hobbes believed that the state of nature is that people are born selfish. These two philosophers managed to influence Madison because Madison wanted liberty but also wanted order and that was mentioned in Hobbes’s theory of a strong leader which provided order.
Locke believed that men essentially were governed by the laws of nature that God created and that the government should reflect in such a
His opinion of human nature was low. In Leviathan, Hobbes portrays humans as selfish, unsocial creatures driven by only two need, survival and personal gain. Therefore, human life is characterized by “constant struggle, strife, and war” with individuals against one another in a battle for self preservation . Hobbes claimed that there was “a general inclination of all [human]kind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death.” Therefore, Hobbes concludes that because of the selfishness of humans, they have no capacity of self government. Locke view humans is a different perspective. Locke developed his own philosophy, which is referred to as tabula rosa. Put simply, this refers to the idea that the human mind at birth is a blank slate without rules for processing data. Data is accumulated in the mind as the rules of processing data are formed. According to Locke, these rules are formed solely on a person’s sensory experience, therefore, Locke will argue that a person is neither good nor evil at birth, it is the summation of their experiences that determine the person that they become. That being said, humans can be educated to an inclination of good rather than evil. As a result, “the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all [human]kind, who will but consult it, that being
First, for Hobbes, the nature of nature is perpetually in a state of war. According to Hobbes, the chief reason why men given up their authority to the sovereign is to seek peace, and avoid the “fear of death. By contrast, while Locke does speak of states of war as well, for him they are a subset of the state of nature, and not the entire equation. Locke specifically states that “men living together according to reason…is properly the state of nature. But force, upon the person of another…is the state of war. Thus, by this reasoning, Locke’s state of nature is a much kinder place than Hobbes’, where man’s life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. In addition, another difference between the theories of the two men is that Hobbes speaks hypothetically of states of nature, whereas Locke points out times when state of nature actually exists. Locke believes that all rulers are in a state of nature, and governors as well. The key difference between Locke and Hobbes in this area is the specifying of the existence of a state of nature, the greater negativity of Hobbes, and Locke’s use of examples in contrast to Hobbes’
Thomas Hobbes believed that man by nature is evil. He however, lived in a time of war
The intent of this paper is to look more closely at what Hobbes and Locke wrote concerning the pre-political or pre-social state called the State of Nature; and the transition from the State of Nature to society, referred to as the social contract.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a
Locke’s thought on having a king, laws, and a civil society under a social contract was so all men can enjoy and protect their rights. Where all men obtain the right to life, all humans have the right to live and life shouldn't be taken away from another human being. The right to liberty, protecting an individual's freedom and unreasonable detention. The right to property, a citizen in which Locke thought a human's labour was his own, anything created or made should remain that individuals as well and the right to rebel against unjust rulers and laws.
Locke is best known for his philosophical ideals regarding the rights of humankind- all individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property.
In the region, some of the people act in their own interest and not taking into consideration of the society. He says that this will lead to war among countries and there will be no morality in the society. There will be fear among the people and this is not a free way to live in a society. People should give up violence so that a free way to live will be present in the society. John Locke says that the law will be enforced on its own, in order to control violence and have an organised society. In such an act the safety and security will be guaranteed. By doing so the entire population is benefited and protected. His main view is that law and order is imposed on its own people so that war is
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.