Locke Vs Hobbes Essay

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are one of the most influential and famous philosophers who both had similar theories but had different conclusions. The two philosophers wrote a discourse “life in the state of nature” and argued about the government. They both had made important and logical contributions to modern philosophy and opened up political thoughts which have impacted our world today. During the seventeenth century the thought of political philosophy became a big topic. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both started questioning the political philosophy and had had different views and reasoning towards human beings. Both Hobbes and Locke had logical and reasonable theories in which they had opposed to one another. Although each philosopher

Hobbes and Locke both abandoned the thought of the divine right of monarchy. Both did not agree with the fact that the ruler or assembly would have all power over its citizens. So basically they were against Absolutism and their views were that of rebels in their time period. Theses two philosophers both held similar ideas but also have conflicting ideas pertaining to the citizens "social contract" with their rulers, "Natural Condition of Mankind," and sovereignty.

Thomas Hobbes and john Locke were both enlightment philosophers who use the state of nature as a formula in political philosophy. Both Locke and Hobbes had tried to influence by their sociopolitical background, “to expose the man as he was before the advent of the social life” (). Locke and Hobbes addressed man’s relation to the society around him; however, they came to different conclusions regarding the nature of human government.

Locke says that we are born good with a blank slate. Whatever we learn and how we learn it from society is what fills the slate. However Hobbes believes that we are born bad and because of this we need a ruler to control that attribute with fear of punishment. I believe that Hobbes is right in the sense that we are born

Contrasting Hobbes and Locke Nearly two-hundred and twenty-five years ago the United States of America chose to fight a Thomas Hobbes government, with the hope of forming a John Locke institution. The ideas of these men lead to the formation of two of the strongest nations in the history of the world: Great Britain followed by the United States. Thomas Hobbes viewed the ideal government as an absolute monarchy, due to the chaos of the state of nature in contrast, John Locke’s ideal government was a democracy due to his beliefs of the equality of men. These men have shared a few of the same beliefs, but mainly contrast each other.

John Locke believed in a democracy and expressed that humans have the ability to govern themselves. However, Hobbes believed that humans are selfish and need a single leader(king) that should govern all affairs. Post French Revolution people lived under Hobbes theory, but wanted to become a Republic.

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.

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

If a person commits a crime, the people have a right to punish him. If one man kills another man's sheep, then the people have the right to kill one of his sheep, without commiting a crime.Locke's theories of government greatly oppose those of Thomas Hobbes, a political philospher who believes in a government headed by an absolute monarch, who has complete control over the entire society. Hobbes says that man is evil, so it is better to give up power to one individual, so that the evil in the society is limited.

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

In conclusion, even though both readings by Hobbes and Locke, they have the similarities of natural equality, rights and liberty. I agreed with Locke because his ideas inspired the thinking of our founding fathers of this country. Majority of his ideas outline and made the constitution and declaration of independence. His ideas of the social contract, the equality of men, property rights and etc was exclusively the reasons what our society is held on. John locked believed in natural rights. The role of individuals were believing in John Locke. They believed in Locke’s idea that the government had a responsibility to protect the citizen’s natural rights. Everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that is what I mainly

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.

I believe both Hobbes and Locke are similar in the way that both of their theories are based on the natural state of human, a situation where everyone is entirely free because there is no interference of laws, but where man fears for their survival on a daily bases. They both agreed that a ruler of some sort appeared absolutely necessary for people, without

I agree with John Locke more than Hobbes. I agree with what John said about how humans are born naturally good, tolerant, and fairly intelligent. Hobbes has a better point about having one or a few people at most in charge.