Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, And The Social Contract Theory

Hobbes states that the proper form of civil government must have a supreme ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. He believes that the goal of the people is to escape the state of war, and that they are willing to transfer their rights in order to leave it. “Whensoever a man transfers his right, or renounces it; it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself; or for some other good he hopes for thereby. For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself.”3 He believes that all men are equal in the state of nature despite any preexisting differences between them because they are ultimately powerful enough to defend themselves and their resources. “Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of the body, and mind; so that though there be found one man sometime manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet

Thomas Hobbes' believed that the social contract of the government and the people was that citizens should let themselves be ruled and that the ruler or assembly should have "ultimate authority." He argues that if there was no government then humans would be out of control and ultimately perish. He also stressed that government was "society's only hope for peace and security" (Fiero 98). Hobbes' ideas about the "Natural Condition of Mankind" was that humans were "selfish, greedy, and war-like" (Fiero 98). This shows that Hobbes' believed that humans needed government in order to live and flourish.

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 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

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 had a very interesting outlook on life, something that was so prevalent for centuries, a monarchy. He believed that the ideal world should fall under a monarch, an idea that is outdated in almost every nation across the globe. He was so strong on these ideas, because he believed all humans at their core are selfish creatures. Another thought that he had was that the state should have total control and order over the people, to maintain peace and to destroy the selfishness that exists in

Thomas Hobbes was an enlightened thinker who lived in the 17th century and through the upheaval that was the English Civil War. While observing the Civil War, Hobbes concluded that people are “naturally cruel, greedy, and selfish” (Ellis 183). Hobbes argued that a strict government was the only way to control people because, without it, they would fight, steal, and oppress each other. He said the only way to keep the people at bay was to have them obey strict laws. His favored government was an absolute monarchy because it “could impose order and compel obedience” (Ellis 183). In an absolute monarchy, the citizens give up all of their rights in order to be protected by their leader.

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

Charles Mills’ ideas in the “Racial Contract” stem from a conversation of the political and pre-political discussed in Thomas Hobbes Leviathan that thoroughly confronts issues such as basic human rights and the social contract theory. Hobbes believed that all people are in a pre-political state of nature without society and rules, but after a social contract is introduced, people can live peacefully together with order, the political. Hobbes’ social contract encompasses the idea that one person is just as strong as another, unless he gives up some of his freedoms to become part of a society of others that will protect and benefit him.

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.

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;

Hobbes believed that in nature people had to do whatever was necessary to survive and that even if living together, people were still likely to fight. His view of people was dark and most likely due to the horrors of a series of political schemes and armed conflicts he had seen during the English Civil War. He believed that a contract was necessary. Hobbes felt that people were not capable of living in a democratic society. Instead, a single dominant ruler was needed, and if everyone did their part, then the community would function smoothly. Hobbes’ theory is unlike Locke and Rousseau’s. He believed that once the people gave power to the government, the people gave up the right to that power. It would essentially be the cost of the safety the people were seeking.

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.