Thomas Hobbes And John Locke's Analysis

Vladimir Putin, who is the president of Russia, the man that is held responsible for tearing Ukraine apart into a battlefield. The eastern region of Ukraine withheld a city (Crimea), which became the headlines of all western and global war for its significant role in the Ukrainian-Russian Conflict. This was due to the city that was being fought over by the two countries. As Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin was bashed by the world for being the new modern Hitler; which Hilary Clinton had compared Putin’s strategical methods on this crisis to. She compared it to the similar Nazi’s of 1930; which she had said in her speech at the University of California. Although, no one can really understand why Vladimir Putin was the most hated man of his time. Later it became evident that it was because of the propaganda that was created by the western media and news. We must really think the fundamentals as to why Putin really entered Crimea, and who really is behind the new regime that has settled in Ukraine as well as which part of the world is standing behind Ukraine.

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.

Hobbes believed that people each have their own ideas of right and wrong, and that there is no way to tell if a person’s version of right and wrong is universally right or wrong. Practically, that each person will create their own rationalization and will even kill another person for physical safety or securing

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.

A philosopher named Thomas Hobbes believed that the main purpose of government was order. Thomas Hobbes today would support a monarchy such as Trump. His view of human nature led him to see people as being born selfish, driven by their desires, and acting upon disputes as sovereign people would. This led him to perceive a government best ruled by one. One of his arguments stated that because people living in a never-ending war between each citizen, “every man against every man”, provided Hobbes to assume that people would be in search of a ruler who could provide peace and stability. In Hobbes’s

Thomas Hobbes believes that humans are naturally unkind. In the module, it portrays his views of man as, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". He argues that without a monarchy, social-conflict and disorder will surely ensue. Hobbes’ genuinely thinks that the role of government is to save man from their natural ways of war and conflict with one another.

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).

To modify Winston Churchill’s quote on Russia Putin “…is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” We can unwrap this mystery by analyzing Putin’s foreign policy through the eyes Morgenthau which will be the basis of this paper. By understanding the mystery we can say that Putin is following a Realist perspective and not the liberalist perspective especially with the Crimean Conflict.

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.

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.

Masha Gessen is a Russian journalist who is known for her opposition to current Russian President Vladimir Putin. Gessen gives the reader key details into Putin’s background as a child all the up until Putin becomes President. She delves into how Putin’s secret police work was his claim to fame and how he became recognized by then President Boris Yeltsin. The author’s thesis is that Putin was always a violent person and would do whatever it took to be in charge. The author claims it started from his childhood and that is how he acts now as the Russian leader.

The current global economic and political climate has promoted the question of whether fascism is on the rise again. Vladimir Putin is one of the few current world leaders who has shown fascist tendencies. Putin’s Russia has many elements that are reminiscent of the early 1900’s fascism. There are many similarities between Putin’s Russia and the fundamental principles of classical fascism. Putin asserts Russian power by putting pressure on weak neighboring states, and slams the West’s criticism of his policies and actions. By annexing Crimea and supporting pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine in 2014, Russia was able to justify “its military-patriotic mobilization of society” and the transformation of Russia into a “besieged fortress” (Motyl, 2016, pg. 29). The annexation of Crimea made Russian citizens feel a wave of vicarious optimism. Putin’s ‘bully’ attitude and aggression are supposed to manifest Russian ethnic and cultural revitalization after decades of decline. Similar to Mussolini, Putin is building his regime on the promises of greatness, the display of military force, and the campaign to make Russia great again. Putin’s actions and policies provide the Russian citizens with a sense of national pride, which has been lacking since the post-Soviet era. He continues to pursue strategies and policies that restore Russian pride while consolidating power and influence in Russia. Putin lacks of interest in engaging with Western politics has also contributed to the rise of his popularity at

In Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?, Karen Dawisha relates Russian President Vladmir Putin’s rise to power. She overarchingly claims that Putin is an authoritarian leader who has obstructed and even reverted Russia’s path of democratization, citing, amongst many factors that enabled his ascension, his “interlocking web of personal connections in which he was the linchpin” (100), money-laundering to tax havens and personal projects, and the complicity of the West. With copious research, journalistic interviews, legal documents, and even sporadic informational diagrams, it is evident why her book is so popular amongst scholars and history enthusiasts. Unfortunately however, in spite of the grand yet oftentimes substantiated claims she generates, a more subtle yet noteworthy assumption is made: that the state is a protector, as Olson proffered. She employs this theoretical underpinning from the beginning, though is not representative of Putin’s actual authoritarian regime.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, takes a Realism approach to policy formulation. Mr. Putin is viewed as man that takes action, with “his swift military interventions” (3). Mr.