Machiavelli, Hobbes, And Locke

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.

Human reason has been one of the guiding principles in our society since the beginning of time and because action is preceded by thought, these two go hand in hand. Every choice we make is based on our thinking process, differentiating between what is good or bad, and contemplating cause and effect. Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx all have distinct conceptions of human nature, which has led to a variety of conclusions regarding the political structures of society that still have resonance today, which goes to show how much of an impact their theories have.

Change is in the inevitable byproduct of society. As societies evolve they change according to the life style of the people who inhabit them. Without change, society would never progress and thus would be frozen in a single moment in time. Thomas Hobbes and John Lock were two English philosophers who observed tremendous changes in English politics between the years of 1640 and 1690. In closely examining the views of both of these philosophers in subject areas such as the nature of man in society, the relationship between a society and its government, and the affect that both philosophers’ novels had on the government, it can be concluded that both Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies created prominent change in the methods of government.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two English political philosophers, who have had a lasting impact on modern political science. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both spent much of their lives attempting to identify the best form of government. Locke and Hobbes were among the most prominent of theorists when it came to social contract and human rights. A Social Contract is an agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, are the two basic figures of differentiating viewpoints when it comes to the social contract. While both agree that societies and governments should coexist with one another, their opinions on how the two operate in relation to one another differ on many important points.

The state of nature is an issue that both Locke and Hobbes took into consideration. Locke believed that within the state of nature, all men had the rights to life, liberty, and property. He believed that all men were free and that they were all equals, leading to a stronger idea of democracy. Hobbes took the stance of an absolute monarch as ruler. People are born with rights which they surrender to their monarch. The monarch in turn gives them protection, which brings forth of the every-so-important social contract. With Locke’s democratic view, and Hobbes’ monarch, their beliefs become clear about the abilities of man himself. Locke saw man as being capable, from the state of

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 government is thought to exist for many reasons. One key reason is that they create rules which people should follow to keep a controlled population in order. In the 1600s European philosophers were arguing on who should run a govern nation. The philosophers argued for different kinds of democracy in a government. The philosophers are John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are social theorists who are both educated in Oxford University. However, they hold distinctive views on human nature, laws, societies, and government. Locke believes in democracy, which the power and the government are in the hands of people, but Hobbes believes in absolute monarchy, where the power and government are belong to the monarch. In this essay, I will mainly use comparison and contrast, first discuss their different opinions about human nature and laws because they are the building blocks to form the government, and then present their views on the formation and purposes of the government. Moreover, I will explain why Locke’s belief, I think, can form a better and more practical government than

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are widely considered 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 would today be considered to be a libertarian viewpoint, 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

Niccolò Machiavelli, Karl Marx, and John Locke are three rationalists who, in spite of the fact that have changing feelings on how rulers should act, all think about the prosperity of the individuals from society. These three distinctive compelling figures of each of their own separate eras would in the long run make pieces out of scholarly showstoppers that give peruses a look into what the world resembled when overseeing powers ruled over social orders. The principal rationalist, Niccolò Machiavelli, composed the work entitled The Prince, which subtle elements the means Machiavelli trusted it took to get and hold political power. The second work, The Communist Manifesto, a synergistic piece composed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,

Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau’s theories on the “state of nature” have made me believe that such a society without a governing body would, over time, turn into some sort of government. This, I believe, is due to the natural ways of human progression. I believe that the human mind works like a vacuum, in that it always wants more of something, its always searching for something else. Rousseau shares similar thoughts, “…human beings…have two special attributes: free will and the capacity for self improvement” (Wolff, p.26).

Niccolo Machiavelli and John Locke are, in simple terms, two vastly different kinds of people. They were separated by nearly two centuries, and lived in two different countries. Despite their contradictions on sovereignty, both Locke and Machiavelli shared a primary concern- the betterment of society.

While Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are all social contract theorists, each of their views on the State of Nature possess different outlooks. The idea of law and liberty fluctuate between each theorist, and what is the true about the natural state of man. Whether men should be acting on their instincts or with reason, whether there is justice or not, and the level of importance that the common good of the whole hold in their views differentiates themselves from one another.

During and after the English Revolution, a few philosophers expressed different views on their philosophical outlook and life experiences. Some of the most outstanding thinkers include Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. They had opposing views on governance matters, but the two, also, had striking similarities. In addition, the two represented an increasingly modernized European population that despised absolute kingship. Both Hobbes and Locke proposed a conception of external power to solve the issues arising from the state of nature?s inconveniences. Also necessary is a third power to calm insecurity in case there was a war. However, the creation of government and the transition out of natural state, including the logic behind this idea, exposes sharp contrasts between the two philosophers. After researching for this paper, I feel that Locke is (more) right about the good life.

Liberty and freedom are central topics that both Machiavelli and Hobbes touch upon as authors of their individual works. While both authors feel that the idea of liberty and freedom is directly tied to politics, rulers and government, the way they associate these ideas with each other is very different. Machiavelli has several different definitions of liberty. Ultimately however, he believes that liberty is a right that the public obtains and that the republic is a state of government in which change is constant, and power is not an absolute. He explains that once a group of people has become accustomed to liberty, that liberty cannot be completely taken away. On the other hand, Hobbes states that for a civil society to prevail, individuals must submit their liberty to an absolute sovereign and the sovereign in turn is in charge of deciding which liberties can be returned back to his subjects. In this way, both philosophers touch upon their own ideas of liberty and how this affects political rule.