Thomas Hobbes And Locke's Leviathan

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English philosopher who is best known for his work in political ethics. Hobbes had a pessimistic view of the human race, however his theory has been used as a major influence on western political views. In 1651, Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan, in which he states that life before government was violent, brutal, and barbaric. Hobbes continues on to argue that civil peace and social unity are best achieved by the establishment of a commonwealth through social contract. Leviathan consisted of four books: 1.) Of Man, 2.) Of Commonwealth, 3.) Of a Christian Commonwealth, and 4.) Of the Kingdom of Darkness. The first book contains the philosophical context, while the second book outlines the rights of the citizens within the commonwealth. The third book argues against certain scriptures, and whether or not a person can claim supernatural

Born during a period of medieval philosophy, Thomas Hobbes developed a new way of thinking. He perfected his moral and political theories in his controversial book Leviathan, written in 1651. In his introduction, Hobbes describes the state of nature as an organism analogous to a large person (p.42). He advises that people should look into themselves to see the nature of humanity. In his quote, “ The passions that incline men to peace, are fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them,” Hobbes view of the motivations for moral behavior becomes valid because of his use of examples to support his theories, which in turn, apply to Pojman’s five purposes for morality.

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

Besides the right to self-preservation, Locke also believed that all individuals had a natural right to property, “the labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are property his,” (pg. 128, 27). This natural right carried with it two preconditions of natural law. First, since God gave the earth to all individuals, people must be sure to leave enough property for others to have, the second

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

A state of nature is a hypothetical state of being within a society that defines such a way that particular community behaves within itself. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes proclaimed that, “A state of nature is a state of war.” By this, Hobbes means that every human being, given the absence of government or a contract between other members of a society, would act in a war-like state in which each man would be motivated by desires derived solely with the intention of maximizing his own utility.

Locke and Hobbes are both famed political philosophers whose writings have been greatly influential in the development of modern political thought. In addition, the two are similar in that both refer to a “state of nature” in which man exists without government, and both speak of risks in this state. However, while both speak of the dangers of a state of nature, Hobbes is more pessimistic, whereas Locke speaks of the potential benefits. In addition, Hobbes speaks of states of nature theoretically, whereas Locke points out examples where they exist.

English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes’, leviathan consists of three parts. The second part, titled “Of Commonwealth”, describes a government Hobbes refers to as the “leviathan”; which is simply defined as “something that is very large and powerful”. Biblically, “leviathan” is defined negatively, as a devilish sea monster. On the contrary, Hobbes uses the term to portray his version of the ideal government.

John Locke believed that all people have the right to property. Property included one’s own body and anything that someone’s labor has produced. The right to one’s own body is considered the freedom to live life and pursue happiness without interference from others. The right to something that one’s labor has produced comes from Locke’s idea

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.

Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race

In “The Leviathan” the author Thomas Hobbes argues the point that all men are created equal. Hobbes believes that nature has created every man equally in a sense that even though everyone has different interests and abilities it does not mean that one is better than the other. One man can be a lot more physically strong than another, but when u compare a two men one might be stronger but the other might be smarter (Hobbes, 82). And there is no way to differentiate which is better because the stronger man might be able to accomplish a task through brut force but the smarter man can accomplish the same task buy using the tools around them to succeed. Suppose the stronger

Having a weak government is the start to a country’s inability to be competitive on the global stage. This can range from issues of trade to matters concerning war. For this reason, I would rather have a government that is too strong as appose to a weak one. In some ways, this may result in a trade of liberty in exchange for safety. While I am not comfortable with that trade off, I would not want to be the worlds target. The other factor that I concern in assessing the two options presented in the question is inner stability. If a government is too weak, their own people will not respect the nations laws. Hobbes speaks to this issue in The Leviathan. He states “where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.”

In the excerpt Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about human beings living in the state of nature where conditions are, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” (p.84) Hobbes claims, people will act in their best interest to form a powerful Sovereign to gain protection, he states “The mutual transferring of right, is that which men call contract.” (p.89) If this creation is to rescue people from their natural-self, then it is required for the sovereign to have complete power. He discloses that the sovereign must never be questioned, and hold indivisible rights.

Leviathan was published in 1651, the year in which saw the end of the “third” English Civil Wars. It offered neither Parliamentarians nor the Royalist full support, due to its ambiguity. On the one hand, Hobbes suggested that a Monarch could undertake any course of action towards his dominions, so long as he maintained security and defence. “…to whatsoever Man, or Assembly that hath the Soveraignty, to be Judge both of the means of Peace and Defence”.[1] Most importantly, Hobbes clearly stated that a sovereign could not be punished by his subjects, which would be inappropriate in 21st century Britain. Without the sovereign, whether it be a group or individual, there would be no enforcer of covenants. In turn, they would be utterly void in the state of nature due to the lack of ‘fear of punishment’ to oblige them, “Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.”[2] Hobbes expresses clearly that a sovereign should be the ultimate power and enforcer, to take matters into his own hands while all his subjects are obliged to follow. However, on the other hand, Hobbes exclaims that an individual can go back on his covenant if he feels it no longer secures his self preservation, which was the case with Parliament and King Charles I. Thus, the King has to answer to the subjects, and this idea was the birth of democracy in England, although different to what we experience in 21st Century Britain.