What Are The Similarities Between Locke And Thomas Hobbes

The word Social Contract theory was first used by Thomas Hobbes to define royal authority. However John Locke who wrote the two treaties on government” in the 1680’s reinforce the meaning of a new social contract theory. In his version of social contract, he stated “men surrendered a part of their right to govern them selves in order to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law”(Foner, 149). In his argument, natural right such as life, liberty and proper play a huge role. According to Locke, Government or political system is form by equal individuals (mainly men of a household). Although men surrendered part of their right to govern to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, they do retain the natural right of protecting of liberty, life and property against any local or foreign enemies. According to Locke and the

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.

Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to connect the philosophical commitments to politics. He offers a distinctive definition to what man needs in life which is a successful means to a conclusion. He eloquently defines the social contract of man after defining the intentions of man. This paper will account for why Hobbes felt that man was inherently empowered to preserve life through all means necessary, and how he creates an authorization for an absolute sovereign authority to help keep peace and preserve life. Hobbes first defines the nature of man. Inherently man is evil. He will do whatever is morally permissible to self preservation. This definition helps us understand the argument of why Hobbes was pessimistic of man, and

These intellectuals attempted to generate an explanation for the purpose of government and expressed their ideal political structure to find a solution to the inequalities in the distribution of power. The changing intellectual and social perceptions of the human condition led to new insights and questions of the way in which humans were ruled: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” (Rousseau 2). This conveys The Philosophe belief that liberty is lost when political rule is too strict, to the point where one is unable to truly live. John Locke deduced in his two Treatises on Government that humans have natural born rights to life, liberty and property (“Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau on Government”). His ideal government protected these natural rights and permitted the freedom of its people to conduct their lives in a way that they see as best fit. He believed that the government existed to serve the people’s will, thus the power laid in the majority (“Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau on Government”). Thomas Hobbes had an opposing view to that of Locke’s government. Hobbes advocated for the monarchy and absolutism, as this form provides strong political stability (Elahi 2). He believed that the people were indebted to the government and protected by the ruler, only if they surrendered their rights and freedoms under a social contract (Elahi 3). Jean

Social Contract: John Locke wrote in his famous treatise that government has a social contract with their citizens. This social contract is a unwritten commitment between the government and citizens saying that the government will receive its power from the peoples commitment to the government. In exchange for giving up individual choice, they will benefit from their protection and unity together as one. Without the bonds of government, society would be a

The formation of government is one of the central themes for both Hobbes and Locke. Whether or not men naturally form a government, or must form a government, is based on man’s basic nature. According to Hobbes, a government must be formed to preserve life and prevent loss of property. According to Locke, a government arises to protect life and property. Governments are born of inequality and formed to administer equality.

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.

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.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both share the common vision of the role of a social contract to maintain order in a state. However, their philosophies were cognizant of a sharp contrasting concept of human nature. This essay aims to compare and contrast the social contracts of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in respect to their definition of natural law. This essay will first analyze the pessimistic Hobbesian approach to the state of nature, the inherit optimistic approach of Locke, and then observe how their definitions directly affect their social contract.

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.

Thomas Hobbes creates a clear idea of the social contract theory in which the social contract is a collective agreement where everyone in the state of nature comes together and sacrifices all their liberty in return to security. “In return, the State promises to exercise its absolute power to maintain a state of peace (by punishing deviants, etc.)” So are the power and the ability of the state making people obey to the laws or is there a wider context to this? I am going to look at the different factors to this argument including a wide range of critiques about Hobbes’ theory to see whether or not his theory is convincing reason for constantly obeying the law.

The original Social Contract tradition has had many authors, but for the purposes of this paper I will focus on John Locke’s work as one political system that might be used by a nation and the problems it entails that would have to be discussed for modern uses. Locke begins by describing a state of nature that entails equality and a state of perfect freedom for mankind to live as they want within the laws of nature (Locke 2009, 370). Locke’s work argues for his view of property, where a man has the right to the fruits of his labor but not to another man’s (Locke 2009, 372). In his view, the government is meant to prevent on man from seeking punishment that is unfit for the committed crime and that people join together for protection for themselves and their property (Locke 2009, 371-372). He argues also that no one man should be in charge and that a democracy should be used instead (Locke 2009, 371).

Since the beginning of the modern age, governments and states have existed in order to maintain moral law. Essentially these institutions are for the greater good of humanity. However, little thought is ever given to how humans lived without governments. Each and every person in the modern age is born into a state, and becomes a part of that state regardless of their will. The concept that humans are born into a state is derived from the social contract. The social contract is a voluntary agreement that allows for the mutual benefit between individuals and governments with regards to the protection and regulation of affairs between members in society. Essentially the idea is that citizens will give up some of their freedoms to the government in return for protection of their remaining rights. Throughout history, there have been a number of philosophers that have discussed the social contract and each philosopher has had there own social contract theories. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes was the foundation for social contract theory in Western political philosophy. While The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau was written a century later and inspired political reforms in Europe. Both Hobbes and Rousseau in their theories appeal to the social contract as being needed as a means to control man in society. However, their theories differ significantly on the basis of the state of nature, the phase after man has left his natural state and

In Two Treatises of Government, John Locke (1823) argued that natural rights such as life, liberty and property could not be taken or given away by individuals. These “inalienable” rights limited the power of the king, who acted only to enforce the natural rights of the people. If these rights were violated, the people had the right to revolt and create a new government. Although Locke supported the idea of a representative government, he wanted representatives to be men of property (Locke 1823). Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1988) also wrote about representation in The Social Contract. Rousseau felt that individuals should enter into a social contract in which they gave up their rights to the entire community, rather than to a king. Rousseau viewed a

Throughout history, there have been many political philosophers whom influenced the government seen in history books and in modern-day society. Despite the varying ideas about government by each political theorist, aspects of each individual idea can be seen in several political documents such as the United States Declaration of Independence. One of these political theorists being Thomas Hobbes, who believed that people would benefit greatly from a Monarch. While John Locke, another renowned political theorist believed that, though the government could help the people, but did not need absolute control over every aspect of their lives. Though, both theorists had different ideology on the structure of the government the ideas would later go on to influence several political documents including the United States Declaration of Independence.