Throughout history there have been numerous political philosophers, and many would agree that John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were the most important of them all. Both of these philosophers had various different theories on what things like a perfect government and a time before government would have been like. Thomas Hobbes tended to lean on the more extreme side of defining humanity, while John Locke had a more peaceful and “humane” idea of the definition of humanity. This essay will be comparing both philosopher’s major theories of the social contract, “The State of Nature,” and the definition of what humans really are.
A social contract is a set of rules and an agreement between a countries government and its people. The US Constitution is an example of this. Both Hobbes and Locke agreed that a perfect government should have a social contract. Hobbes thought people were naturally dangerous to themselves and each other, so he believed a social contract should take away all of peoples rights in exchange for their protection. He also believed that because people do not naturally know right from wrong, the government would always right. Unlike Hobbes, Locke thought people were mostly
…show more content…
John Locke had a more mellow philosophical theory of what “The State of Nature” would have been like. He believed that humans would have been naturally peaceful and would have gotten along just fine most of the time. Thomas Hobbes theory of the topic is pretty much the converse of Locke’s Theory. He believed that without government the strong would dominate the week, there would be a lot of chaos and violence, and peoples lives would have been “Nasty, brutish, and short”. The only similarity between Locke and Hobbes on this subject is the fact that they both agreed all people were born with absolute
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
Joseph Conrad once said, “It is the mark of an inexperienced man not to believe in luck”. Nailer, the main character of Paolo Bacigalupi’s book Ship Breaker, wasn’t born lucky, he was born a ship breaker. Ship breakers are child and adult laborers who spend their days starving, poor, and working away to take the anything valuable off old ships for the big companies. Throughout Nailer’s life, he has suffered through various unfortunate events. However, with a strong belief of luck and having other superstitions, his life becomes more manageable. In Ship Breaker, Paolo Bacigalupi demonstrates that being superstitious and believing in various degrees of luck allows people to more easily feel in control of uncontrollable situations.
Thomas Hobbes studied the idea of a “State of nature” and came up with the “Social contract theory” first, but then was studied later by John Locke, a European philosopher whose work is still seen in effect
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
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
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
Locke foresaw the same potential threat as Hobbes, but he felt that man, as a social, animal, also had an innate desire to cooperate as well as compete. He could choose to be virtuous as well as venal (Morgan, 2011, p. 716). Not simply because he was “good,” but because cooperation and conflict reduction were also in his enlightened self-interest (Morgan, 2011, p. 594). Locke, unlike Hobbes, was a Deist, and was influenced by his religious view of man. Men are sinners
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
Everyone has their own very unique views on everything in the world. What’s right and what’s wrong is a good example of how humanity views different subjects let’s say a man kills another man to protect his family from harm he may see it as okay to do but in the bible it says “thou shall should not kill” so it’s all how you look at it. In this paper I will be discussing the different view point of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on the most basic tenets of classical liberalism. For example the states of nature, the social contracts, and the sets of view of the rights and obligations of citizens and states. My first topic that I will be discussing is the different views of social contracts. It will go in order from Hobbes to Locke then to Rousseau.
Journal # 4, Langston Hughes - Salvation Salvation is a short story by Langston Hughes. He was an African American essayist, author and author of African American literature. He talks in first person about his experience in Auntie Reed’s church where all young sinners were sent there to be saved. In this story, we will scrutinize each part of the story and its meaning. This story focus mainly on morality, honesty, pressure in demanding faith against the youth, the difference of two generations of how they interpret ideas, and faithfulness in the main character.
Hobbes believed that in nature people had to do whatever was necessary to survive and that even if living together, people were still likely to fight. His view of people was dark and most likely due to the horrors of a series of political schemes and armed conflicts he had seen during the English Civil War. He believed that a contract was necessary. Hobbes felt that people were not capable of living in a democratic society. Instead, a single dominant ruler was needed, and if everyone did their part, then the community would function smoothly. Hobbes’ theory is unlike Locke and Rousseau’s. He believed that once the people gave power to the government, the people gave up the right to that power. It would essentially be the cost of the safety the people were seeking.
The story of Macbeth transpires in 11th Century Scotland towards the end of the Dark Ages in Europe. The direction the tale will take based on the period of time correlates well, as a bloody power struggle unfolds upon the land. Through the play, William Shakespeare involves a tremendous amount of character involvement and influence within the play. The majority of the characters in the book will face either an interpersonal or intrapersonal conflict, which in turn will play a part in character development. Each and every character in the play are used as a key role of how it impacts other characters growth and change. Nevertheless, Macbeth ,the main character in the play, undergoes massive changes that lead to the audience’s change in perspective.
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.
Hobbes wrote that in order for men to have security and to escape the State of War that exists in the State of nature, they must "conferre all their power and strength upon one Man" and that this man will "beare their Person." In fact, Hobbes did not consider the State of Nature as having existed generally throughout the world. Locke on the other hand says that it is a state men are naturally in and will remain so unless men consent to form a civil society.
The ideas presented by Hobbes and Locke are often in opposition. Hobbes views humanity much more pessimistically; viewing men as evil according to natural law and government a way to eliminate natural law. Locke takes a much more optimistic stance; viewing government a means to preserve the state of nature and enhance it as men are naturally peaceful and equal. Discarding the differences in ideology, their ideas were radical for their time. The interest they took in natural law, man's natural characteristics, and the role of government, provided inspiration for, and was the focus of many literary works for the future.