Similarities Between Locke And Hobbes

Locke’s idea of the state of nature men had kept their promises and honoured their obligations. In locke’s first treatise he argued that there was no divine right for monarchs, because God didn't put men above others and therefore everyone was equal. In his second treatise he strikes Hobbes and speaks his thought on the state of nature “man is free and in this condition all men equal”. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free to order their actions, of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the of the law of nature. This idea influenced him to believe that human nature is represented by reason and tolerance the reasoning was "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it", and that law is the reason. Much different than Hobbes, who had believed people were selfish and needed to be

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.

First and foremost, they both shared a need for government among citizens. Lock and Hobbes also have a few similar points on a state of nature. In a state of nature, they both agree on the fact that all men are equal in this sense. Locke even refers to this state as equality, similarly to how Hobbes calls men equal in mind and body. Similarly, they both believed in finding it challenging for people to protect and guard their natural rights. These are also known as rights every human being is born with. These rights include life, liberty, and property. They both go on to stress and even warn over the dangers involved with a state in nature. Thomas Hobbes says that a man is in a state of war when he is in a state of nature. John Locke says without the law of nature, everyone could carry out their decisions. This would lead into a state of war. This existence of the state of war being involved in the state of nature is prevalent in both

Enlightenment philosophers, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes had different theories about the social contract between government and the governed. John Locke believed in the government while Hobbes believed that the government should have full control. John Locke view on government proved successful than Thomas Hobbes.

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.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke Paige Thomas Fortis College – Columbus  Thomas Hobbes and John Locke The world is full of many conflicts. Political theory in the 17th century, according to many historians and philosophers was no acceptation to the rule. The very nature of government and sources of power was debated and even experimented upon many different times.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have the same view on the state of nature. Although, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke do not have the same views on natural rights and social contracts. Hobbes views on the state of nature is very similar to Locke’s view. Hobbes believed that people were naturally selfish. For example, In the text it states, “ Hobbes saw humans as naturally selfish and quick to fight.

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 and Hobbes were some of the most renounced contract theorist with profound but distinctive premises regarding the understanding of human nature. Locke believed that human beings are social animals by nature. On the other hand, Hobbes disregarded that view, suggesting that man can survive upon the power of the state and does not rely on natural courses of survival. Locke also pointed out that the state of nature established a more resilient and morally upright man, one that could honor their promises and obligations. Despite the high-level insecurity in the natural world, it was synonymous with peace. However, Hobbes suggests that no society lacks violence or is ignorant of dangers that may at times cause death.

However, their views are similar in the fact that Locke does agree the justice is not entirely present and is only there in a fraction of what it should be. He also agrees that men all want the same thing, but the difference is that Locke says that men all have the same things so that it develops a sense of equality amongst people. There are natural laws that basically say that a man should not be killing and committing a crime unless doing so is against somebody who has already killed or committed the crime, and doing so is preventing that person from more crime. Locke says that natural laws should be prevalent in nature because a “state of war” threatens to disrupt the peace and independence that is present in a “state of

To further critique Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau proposes that man’s natural “savage” state or even that of the ancients was better than that of which the enlightenment has produced. Hobbes and Locke believe they have blown the roof off of Plato’s cave, but instead they blinded people with a light of falsehood. Rousseau states that while “the ancient politicians spoke constantly of moral and virtue; ours [the politicians of the enlightenment] speak only of commerce and money” (26). This, as stated previously, leads to a sort of enslavement to money as a need that, when viewed as a luxury, can not be satisfied.

Unlike Hobbes, Locke thought people were mostly

Thomas Hobbes, another great thinker of the 17th century did not view humanity in such a positive light. His experience with civil war shaped his worldview in such a way that he believed society needed an absolute monarchy to have success. In exchange for a lawful and peaceful existence, a collective society would need to hand over personal rights to a strong leader who could ensure their safety. Hobbes entitled this arrangement a ‘social contract.’ Both Locke and Hobbes subscribed to the idea of a social contract and to natural law theories.

Compare and contrast Hobbes’s and Locke’s views of the state of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society. Whose view is the more plausible? Why?

The modern philosophical thought presents man as the center of the study. The focus is not on contemplation or the truth nor the religion but the man. The student argues that state and society or man is inseparable even it is modern era already, the same with the classical and medieval. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are progenitors of social contract. Thomas Hobbes presented his social contract through his work, The Leviathan.