The Enlightenment: Hobbes vs. Locke Two famous philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, have contributed to modern political science by expressing their views on human nature and the general laws that man had to follow. Both of their views differed in terms of how man should live his life. These views will be shown by comparing both philosophers’ opinions on the nature of man, and the various laws that constituted. Man was naturally evil, selfish, and living in a state of war, according to Hobbes. He believed that “humans were created “bad” by their creator”, and were “condemned to live in a world where bad things happen” (The Enlightenment, 1650-1789, p. 6).
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two theorists known for their views regarding the social contract. Both theorists study the origins of government and the level of authority given to the state over individuals, thoroughly constructing their arguments through the social contract. A philosophical approach was used in both Hobbes’s and Locke’s arguments, however supporting different authorities. Thomas Hobbes advocates for absolutism whilst John Locke advocates for a constitutional government. Through the close examination of the state of nature, the relationships between subject and sovereign and views regarding the social contract, one can observe a more sensible basis for constructing a successful political society.
DeAndre’ Royster Simple,and Exclusive The natural state of mankind before forming a government. Hobbes and Locke both believed in a state of nature. They also both believed in a social contract. Hobbes wanted a government to protect people from each other.
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher in the 17th century that is best known for his book Leviathan and his political views. Hobbes’ father was disgraced and forced to leave their town, because of this, Thomas’s uncle is most responsible for his upbringing and his education. At the early age of 14, Hobbes was already studying at oxford. Soon after, he became a tutor for a very affluent family, the Cavendish’s. Hobbes often traveled with the family and learned about many cultures across Europe. Through his ties with the cavendish family, Thomas became involved with European courts and advised kings.
However, if the government’s subjects refuse to obey the law of the land, the leading authorities have the right to “punish the crimes committed against that law”. Moreover, if the government takes their natural rights away from the people, they have the right to overthrow the government, because those rights are universal and belong to every human being. Locke’s proposed system guards against absolute or arbitrary power by emphasizing the power of unity.
The sole purpose of government, according to John Locke, was to support all citizens and their natural rights as well as protect and defend them at all times. As long as citizens were given their natural rights and equal treatment they were capable of civilly governing themselves. John Locke advised that a country’s government is in a binding social contract with its people; for the transfer of some rights to the government the people will in turn receive protection of their rights and pursuit of liberty and happiness. If ever violated this contract their own citizens would rebel against them. This dissolution can be a result of change in government, due to the violation of the citizen’s liberty.
In the present assignment, an attempt has been made to evaluate the influence of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on the modern society. At the same time, the connection between the writings of these philosophers and the things that are actually present has also been explored. Both the philosophers were very enlightened thinkers of the 17th century. At the same time, both of them have very strong views regarding human nature and also the role that displayed by the government in the lives of the people. In this regard, Hobbes believed that by their nature, people were selfish but the perspective of Locke was different. He believed that the human beings are good by nature and reasonable and therefore they can self-regulate themselves. However, as a result of these differences, these two philosophers have different outlooks regarding what should be an ideal government. But despite these differences, both of
Comparing Hobbes and Locke Hobbes and Locke have many similar and different. some similarities are they both believed the natural state of mankind before forming a government is the State of Nature. Another is divine rights or social contract?
However, The Founders sided more so with John Locke on how to go about solving this issue. Now Hobbes viewed, as an individualist, is misleading since he believes the power should belong to the state, because for Hobbes there is only state-sovereignty not self-sovereignty. Now this notion becomes increasingly dangerous because if a person is to follow it all the through since a man’s life without the state is war and chaos and the only solution to this is a strongman, in the end it is the state that makes people human and the state that gives people rights, so the state can take them away. The
It is Hobbes’ interpretation of the state of nature that deconstructs the anarchist’s argument by revealing flaws and inconsistencies. An absolute sovereign is clearly necessary in order for a society to flourish. Once again, the anarchist’s theory is weakened on account of Hobbes’ evidence. His clear and straightforward social contract theory lays down a sturdy foundation for society, acknowledging the challenges it will face and providing solutions. Hobbes’ comprehensive analysis of human nature and society offers a legitimate BLANK to anarchism.
John Locke discusses within in his book, “Second Treatise of Government,” the concepts of natural rights of individuals as well as the legitimate exercise of political power. Within his writing, Locke links his beliefs to a theory of personal property. This joining of ideas helps Locke make an argument against mainly unjust governments. In addition to his argument, Locke aims to explain how he believes that people have the right to rebel against their own government. In fact, he promotes people to rebel against their own government because everyone should have a government that they trust.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, two titans of the Enlightenment, work within similar intellectual frameworks in their seminal writings. Hobbes, in Leviathan, postulates a “state of nature” before society developed, using it as a tool to analyze the emergence of governing institutions. Rousseau borrows this conceit in Discourse on Inequality, tracing the development of man from a primitive state to modern society. Hobbes contends that man is equal in conflict during the state of nature and then remains equal under government due to the ruler’s monopoly on authority. Rousseau, meanwhile, believes that man is equal in harmony in the state of nature and then unequal in developed society. Thus, both men would evaluate the statement that “in a legitimate state all men are free and there is no inequality,” differently. Rousseau would mostly disagree, holding that the state itself is the impetus for inequality. Hobbes would largely agree, contending that men are equal both in a primitive state of conflict and under a sovereign’s awesome power. These different responses result from the philosophers’ opposing views on fundamental human nature, civil society’s raison d’etre, and government’s inevitable form.
This state of nature was the conditions in which we lived before there were any political governments to rule over us and it described what societies would be like if we had no government at all. In this essay I will compare the opinions given by each philosopher regarding their understanding of the state and the law. I will also discuss how their theories have influenced our understanding of the law today. Thomas Hobbes – Regarding the State and Law Firstly I would like to begin my discussion with Thomas Hobbes.