Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government

The Declaration of Independence and Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan have important silmaries an differences. Thomas Hobbes believed that the government should be ruled in a absolute monarchy which means that the king has total control over the government, citizens, and the laws. The Declaration of Independence says that all people should be created equally and respectfully and the king isn't treating people like this because he has gone courrpt with power and ne should be punished.

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).

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.

Having established his state of nature, Locke begins his description of the formation and transition to society, and appropriately starts with a discussion of property. “God, who hath given the World to Men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of Life, and convenience.” (Locke, Second Treatise, V.26). Here, Locke does little more than apply natural law (self preservation) to what he sees around him (land), but in doing so, makes a groundbreaking shift. He reveals that, following from natural law, men have a right to use what they have around them to further their own preservation and lives. In addition, man has an inherent, and obvious, possession of himself and all that comes with it, including, and most importantly, labor. “The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” (Locke, Second Treatise,

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.

Several writers in 17th century England published incredibly influential works on political philosophy. These pieces detailed the nature of humans and consequently explained the best method of governing them. Published in 1651, Thomas Hobbes’s controversial Leviathan details a rather dystopian view of humanity’s natural state and advocates for an absolutist government. Nearly 40 years later, John Locke published The Second Treatise of Government, detailing his own views, many of which sharply contrast with those of Hobbes. Despite both Hobbes and Locke arguing that all men are equal in the state of nature, Hobbes’s belief that this equality causes constant warfare leads him to recommend a repressive civil state in which a sovereign acts as

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.

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 finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes'

The Right of Nature is defined by Hobbes as: ... the Liberty each man hath, to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature. That is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing anything, which in his own Judgement, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto. Liberty, according to Hobbes is simply the absence of external impediments to motion, which will prevent a person from some actions, but not from all the actions available to him or her. So, there is not much in the Primary State of Nature to prevent

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.

In comparing the idea of political sovereignty, it is paramount to note the political theories established by the enlightenment figures Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both of these archetypal figures were writing at a time of religious and social uncertainty within England. Locke was primarily a physician but was most well-known for writing ‘Two Treatise of Government’ (1690). Hobbes however, was well versed in science and metaphysics, while also being well acquainted with the relationship between philosophy and politics, he wrote ‘the Leviathan’ (1651). Writing at a time of civil war, causing social, religious and political doubt. God was a central thought in almost all scientific understandings which shaped ideas concerning the natural world. This not only impacted how individuals perceived the natural world but also how social and political status was understood. The monarch was understood to be divinely appointed. However, the removal of monarch and civil unrest created uncertainly with a government that has been legitimised by the church alone and therefore other certainties were needed to create stability. Both Hobbes and Locke were aiming to create these new certainties encompassing revolution and the removal of one monarch to the next. Such integral political structures originate with the natural condition of mankind known as the state of nature. Conversely, Hobbes and Locke had conflicting views on what the state of nature actually was leading to differentiating ideas on political sovereignty.

For almost every word, all philosophers have their own notion towards it’s meaning. This is especially true for the term “justice”. The philosophers Hobbes and Plato both exhibit their own beliefs towards its interpretation through their respective stories, the Leviathan and the Republic. Instead of simply stating his view, Plato takes it to another level. He brings up a multitude of possibilities for the meaning of justice, arguing with himself and shooting down his own theories. The purpose of his Republic is to find the best and most logical definition of justice through discussion. Hobbes discusses various topics in his piece on top of justice; he addresses sense, imagination, dreams, speech, names, understanding and reason. Using these other subjects, he cultivates his own definition of justice. Similar to Plato, Hobbes creates counter arguments to many of the ideas that he presents and supports. Hobbes views justice mostly as a societal norm, while Plato has his own set of perspectives. Among their views on justice there are a surprising amount of similarities, yet still many differences.

One of the first political theorists, Aristotle once wrote in his novel Politics, “Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ” (Aristotle 4) Dating back to Ancient Greece, the state of nature has been observed and disputed for centuries. It wasn’t until the 1600s, was Aristotle’s theory ever seriously debated. Thomas Hobbes developed his own theory on what is the state of nature in his novel The Leviathan. This writing sparked interest in philosophers as to what human nature truly is, not just what Aristotle had suggested. Just thirty-eight years later, John Locke anonymously published his writings Two Treatises of Government, suggesting a differing outlook on the state of nature to Hobbes. Through a summarization of each philosopher’s depiction of the state of nature and explanations of the strengths and weaknesses of each theory, one will be able to find which argument is the most compelling.

What justifies political legitimacy in a society? By comparing the two readings assigned one can discuss the differences in political theories expressed by both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. In, Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, and in, The Second Treatise of Government, by John Locke different theories of political legitimacy and definitions of the state of nature are described. The following paragraphs analyze multiple different points that are imperative to understanding these political theories.