The Political Philosophies Of Thomas Hobbes And John Locke

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.

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

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.

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.

James Madison strongly believed and supported increasing national power of government and that led him to establish his model known as Madison’s model. James Madison’s design to maximize liberty and still allow the government to govern is proven through the four component parts of Madison’s model. These four components include separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and republicanism. The philosophies of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes influenced Madison in a way that allowed him to have both liberty and order at the same time. John Locke believed in individual liberty and freedom from the government whilst Thomas Hobbes believed that the state of nature is that people are born selfish. These two philosophers managed to influence Madison because Madison wanted liberty but also wanted order and that was mentioned in Hobbes’s theory of a strong leader which provided order.

Thomas Hobbes describes his views on human nature and his ideal government in Leviathan. He believes human nature is antagonistic, and condemns man to a life of violence and misery without strong government. In contrast to animals, who are able to live together in a society without a coercive power, Hobbes believes that men are unable to coexist peacefully without a greater authority because they are confrontational by nature. “In the nature of man”, Hobbes says “there are three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence, thirdly, glory” and then he goes on to list man’s primary aims for each being gain, safety and reputation (Hobbes, Leviathan, 13, 6).

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 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

It was the land, when mixed with man’s labour offered the means of turning that outcome into money. Since land ownership is a prerequisite to making money and money is a pre-condition to owning land, the two became inexorably linked. In short, the introduction of money led to unlimited accumulation, scarcity and, ultimately, conflict. Although the sufficiency limitation remained intact, there was no longer “as much and as good” land for everyone and, as a result, a visible disparity between “owners” and the “wage makers” appeared and conflict between them arose. Locke commented on the problems inherent in accumulation of property in the state of nature;

Thomas Hobbes was a divisive figure in his day and remains so up to today. Hobbes’s masterpiece, Leviathan, offended his contemporary thinkers with the implications of his view of human nature and his theology. From this pessimistic view of the natural state of man, Hobbes derives a social contract in order to avoid civil war and violence among men. Hobbes views his work as laying out the moral framework for a stable state. In reality, Hobbes was misconstruing a social contract that greatly benefited the state based on a misunderstanding of civil society and the nature and morality of man.

Political philosopher John Locke ideas and theories serve as a foundation in our democratic world. In the Second Treatise of Government sovereignty is placed in the hands of the people. Locke argues that everyone is born equal and has natural rights in the state of nature. He also argues that men have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. The central argument around the creation of a civil society was with the protection of property. In this essay I will explain Locke's theory of property and how it is not anything other than a "thinly disguised defense of bourgeois commercial capitalism." This statement is defended through Locke's personal background and his justifications for the inequalities of wealth.

In defining political legitimacy, many theorists put forth a distinct set of values that frame their view on the authorities’ right to rule and citizen’s obligation to follow. Theorists such as Hobbes and Locke, both of their account on political legitimacy might look quite similar at first glance, because each theorized about the nature of mankind and the right political systems that would meet the needs of individuals. However, in Hobbes’ perspective, political authority does not pre-exist in individual’s state of nature, rather, it is created by the social contract and serves to ensure self-preservation which is threatened in a state of nature. In contrast, Locke thought that the social contract does not create authority, but that political authority is embodied in individuals and pre-exists in the state of nature, all individuals thus have the moral obligation to respect those rights made by authorities. In my point of view, Locke’s idea sounds more compelling than that of Hobbes’, because it allows individuals to have their own liberties free from an oppressive sovereign and prevents danger posed by absolute freedom.

John Locke (1689) and Thomas Hobbes (2010) share a common underlying concern: establishing a social contract between the government and the governed. To be legitimate, government must rest in the final analysis on the “consent” of the governed, they maintain. They also share a common view of humanity as prone to selfishness (Morgan, 2011 p. 575-800). Given the modern era, Hobbes views of the state of nature and government seem antiquated; no longer do the masses wish to be subservient to anyone man without question. Lockean principals are now the base for today’s modern, just, prosperous and free states.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both natural law theorists and social contracts theorists. While most natural law theorists have predominantly been of the opinion that humans are social animals by nature, Locke and Hobbes had a different perspective. Their points of view were remarkably different from those perpetuated by other natural law theorists. On the other hand, Locke’s perspective of human nature wasn’t quite as fine as Hobbe’s, although it was much simpler to understand based on its logical foundation. This essay compares and contrast