The Between Humans And Animals

John Locke stated that all men are naturally in a perfect freedom as their Natural rights. Quoting Locke's words stating “creatures of the same species and rank should be equal amongst others without subordination or subjection.” A philosopher who believed in Natural rights for all men and women lived 1632-1704 in England, his expression of revolutionary ideas such as Natural rights and the Social contract later

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

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

“All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” “It is not wisdom but Authority that makes a law” (BrainyQuote). The first quote was said by John Locke. The second quote was said by Thomas Hobbes. Locke and Hobbes each had different philosophies about what would be the best form of society and government. The differences between these two political thinkers’ ideas are important to understanding their philosophies as well as the similarities.

Locke and Hobbes started with a central notion that people with similar “state of nature” would on their own accord come together as a state. Locke believed that individual would not perpetually be at war with each other. He believed humans began with a state of natural characteristics of absolute freedom with no government in site. Hobbes work differs from that of Locke’s because he felt people needed a strong central authority to ward off the inherent evil and anarchic state of man. Locke believed that within the state of nature man would have stronger morals and thus limit their actions. Locke also, credited people with the ability to do the right thing within a group. And the natural rights and civil society where Hobbes differentiated with this by believing that people had to resolve their natural rights and the their were privileges granted by the sovereign. Locke believed the relationship between citizens and government took the form of a social contract, in which in exchange for order and protections provided by institutions the citizens agree to surrender some of the freedoms within the state of nature. This was also, agreed that power of the state was not absolute but exercised according to law. If broken by the state it forfeits and the contract becomes void. This allots for the citizens of the state to have a “voice” and power for change to replace the government with moral obligation by the governed. Hobbes believed absolute power was the price man should

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.

Hobbes, on the other hand, does not foresee this case but only seems capable of enforcing a strong power. At this point, it is pertinent to point out the ambiguity that Locke shows in his "state of war," a state that is generated when natural law is placated by the willpower of certain men. The fundamental difference between Locke and Hobbes lies therefore in the conception of man in the state of nature; one sees him as a wolf for other men, and the other sees him as a born follower of the precepts of natural law until it is corrupted by their passions or by the actions of other men. The solution in both cases is to seek a reliable external power that limits the freedom of people and eliminate the "state of war." Unlike Hobbes, for Locke, the state of nature is not identified with the state of war. On the contrary, the state of war constitutes a violation, a degeneration of the state of nature, through the imposition of force in the absence of any right; a devaluation of what the state of nature must

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 and John Locke are two of most important philosophers whose writing have had a major impact on Farmers of the U.s Constitution. Even though both Hobbes and Locked were well known for their social contracts and natural law theories, they both have very different approaches to the where they stand and their conclusion in several laws of nature. Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher from Malmesbury while John Locke was from Wrighton, Somerset.

Thomas Hobbes published his most famous work, Leviathan, during the height of the English Civil War. This was possibly the most violent and chaotic time in all of British history, and is certainly reflected in Hobbes’ writing. He introduces his view on the state of nature, that is, society without government, as a state of war, in which the lives of men are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes 89) From this state of nature he describes natural laws, which help to form the purpose of government in his eyes. The first, and “Fundamental Law of Nature” is that men “seek peace, and follow it” (92) This fundamental law is also what he believes a sovereign is meant to uphold. He argues that the Sovereign must do everything in their power to preserve the commonwealth. Hobbes strongly advocates for an authoritarian form of government.

Hobbes ' view in Leviathan aims at ensuring civil order, which means for him the absolute power of the government, or the Leviathan, which power the people have given him through the social contract. Locke, on the other hand, keeps much more power in the hands of the people through the legislature, which means, in effect, majority rule. Locke was also deeply concerned with maintaining the rights of the people, especially the right to own property. Locke 's political view produces a much more democratic system, while Hobbes ' produces a much more authoritarian, if not totalitarian, system. Both Locke and Hobbes start their political analysis with reference to the state of nature. However, their definitions of this state of nature stand in stark contrast to one another. The differences on their perception of the state of nature correspond to the final conclusions of what is important in a civil society. The contrasting perceptions of the state of nature on the part of these two philosophers are crucial, because they use those perceptions as the foundations for the political

The sovereign is in charge of doing whatever he deems necessary yo keep the nation safe. Locke views government as something that is formed by the consent of the people. He created a system, called separation of powers, that prevented the government from abusing its power by dividing it into separate branches, so no branch could be stronger than the other two. Locke also states that if the government ever oversteps its boundaries and abuses its power, that the people have the right to overthrow the government and start anew.The two also have a very different view on what is right and wrong. Locke has a brighter outlook on humanity, saying that men have intrinsic rights that come from their creator. He says these rights are life, liberty, and property ownership. He deems all people equal because they all come from God. Hobbes, on the other hand, believes that right and wrong is purely individual. It varies by person and situation. He says that men, despite mental and physical differences are all equal because a weak man can still kill a strong man. The weak man may have to form an army, but he still has the capability to end the other man’s

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

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are often viewed as opposites, great philosophers who disagreed vehemently on the nature and power of government, as well as the state of nature from which government sprung. Hobbes’ Leviathan makes the case for absolute monarchy, while Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argues for a more limited, more representative society. However, though they differ on certain key points, the governments envisioned by both philosophers are far more alike than they initially appear. Though Hobbes and Locke disagree as to the duration of the social contract, they largely agree in both the powers it grants to a sovereign and the state of nature that compels its creation.

John Locke describes the fact that all men are born naturally good, but the environment might influence some people to be evil. He states that we are all property of God, and our purpose is to live. Locke writes that “sharing all in one community of nature, ... that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's” (Uzgalis). Since we are trying to survive, Locke believes that there is a Golden Rule, which said that no one should harm anyone else, and their rights. Locke sticks close to the Bible, which describes and he states that all women should have the right to reason, and have the same rights as men. Locke supports a Monarchy, but the Monarch can only