Compare And Contrast Thomas Hobbes And John Locke

In this document we will explore the fundamental differences between the governmental reasonings of a mister Thomas Hobbes and a mister John Locke. The two lived very different lives and they also had quite the different opinion of the morality of the human race as a whole. Their lives reflected the reasoning of the two’s opinions and why they chose what type of governmental rulings they had chosen. However, the American peoples, or the former colonists, had went with the reasoning of a mister John Locke.

In the United States, the right to vote is one of the most important fundamental right that is available to any American citizen. Once an exclusive right that was available only to a certain group of individuals, has been extended to all citizens in the United States. However, the exception to this involves individuals who have been convicted of a felony. There are approximately five million citizens that are denied the right to vote because they have been convicted of a felony, many of which were nonviolent. The loss of their voting right entails a significant impact to these individuals as members of society and further hinders their attempt at reintegration into a democratic society. Those who are in favor of felony disenfranchisement argue that it is justified through the social contract theory, a theory both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke expand on.

Crawley 1 Emily Crawley Daniel Cline AP US History October 2015 Thomas Hobbes vs John Locke Our Earth is filled with polarities, from little things like chocolate and vanilla, to more large scale things, such as Heaven and Hell. These opposing choices haven’t changed throughout history, some have only adopted new names. There’s many prominent polarities in politics, like who has the best ideas, who do the people like the best, and even Democratic and Republic. Although politics hadn’t advanced that far in the 17th century, opposing ideas still existed and fought each other.

Thomas Hobbes and Jacques Rousseau on the state of nature The world is always filled with rigid dichotomies: good and evil, left and right, McDonald’s and Burger King -- just to mention some of them. The political theory in the 17th century seemed to have experienced a similar trend. The nature of government, more specifically the state of men, were often questioned, like the debate between Democrats and Republicans today. In 17th century Europe, the two major viewpoints on the issue were best exemplified by the writings of Thomas Hobbes, and Jacques Rousseau.

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.

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).

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.

If Hobbes and Locke would see both of their perspectives on governing in the 21st century wouldn't they both see that both of their perspective make sense. According to the way their psychologically viewing government at the era. Since Thomas Hobbs wrote the Leviathan on the background of the English Civil war. Of course anyone would view this and say the country is under cause and we need someone like Oliver Cromwell who came in and became powerful enough to say no one will have the audacity to challenge. Since Hobbs believed that without the absence of an invincible absolute ruler,we would kill each other. Since at the background he was writing they were technically doing exactly that. Until Oliver stepped in. However as Locke view things

In their individual bodies of work, Hobbes and Locke both advocate for their own solutions to escaping the state of nature. Through the use of a collective social contract amongst the population, citizens now find themselves in a society governed by some common arbitrator and leadership. However, the two philosophers approach the concepts of the state of nature and social contract from opposing viewpoints - a contrast which is reflected throughout the majority of their philosophies. The foundational difference throughout their pieces rests on how they view human nature and the innate will of people - be it corrupt and self-servicing or free and capable of reason. This divergence in thought is representative in the way they define key principles, argue for certain stances,

Hobbes lived through the English Civil War where religion and its influence on authority, produced conflict. To understand why the war occurred, Hobbes began to observe humans in what he called their “State of Nature”. Hobbes concluded that nature without society resulted in war. Without the state, humans proved to be naturally selfish, competitive, greedy, and brutish with impulsive tendencies. To intervene war and human impulsiveness, a state was required to regulate society and sustain social order.

The works of the philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Jean- Jacques Rousseau have continued to rival each even though they were never alive during the same period of time. Thomas Hobbes and Jean- Jacques Rousseau both have conflicting views on “Human Nature”. Rousseau being the younger of the two analyzed Hobbes’ work and seemed to deduce the almost opposite of what Hobbes had believed himself. There have been many debates and arguments throughout time that has given valid arguments for both sides to be correct and even points from both that form an appealing ideal to some. Regardless of the opposition of beliefs, the two have a place etched in history as two of the most influential writers and thinkers ever.

For purposes of this paper, Thomas Hobbes’s theory will be the one mainly contrasted. Thomas Hobbes was an English political theorist who put forward theories on state sovereignty, individual rights and human nature in his work Leviathan (1651). Throughout his work (Leviathan), Hobbes poses that before political society men lived under a state of nature. Under this state of nature, humans lived under a perpetual fear, progress was overall inexistent and death would be a common phenomenon; basically, every man had the right to survive by any means necessary, including murder. Because of this perpetual state of fear, humans would resort to giving all their inherent rights to a supreme being in exchange for protection.

For the most part, philosophies of social contracts are developed from a heuristic perspective of human conditions known as the natural state or conditions that are lack social order. From this perspective, philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes attempt to explain the nature of humans and the rationality that was involved in giving up some of their freedom to create social structures. These theories, nonetheless differ widely on the basis of the author account and the natural state. This paper seeks to bring to light such differences.

The secondary literature on Hobbes's moral and political philosophy (not to speak of his entire body of work) is vast, appearing across many disciplines and in many languages. There are two major aspects to Hobbes's picture of human nature. As we have seen, and will explore below, what motivates human beings to act is extremely important to Hobbes. The other aspect concerns human powers of judgment and reasoning, about which Hobbes tends to be extremely skeptical. Like many philosophers before him, Hobbes wants to present a more solid and certain account of human morality than is contained in everyday beliefs. Plato had contrasted knowledge with opinion. Hobbes contrasts science with a whole raft of less reliable forms of belief - from probable inference based on experience, right down to "absurdity, to which no living creature is subject but man" (Leviathan, v.7).

The Bill of Rights is a formal statement of the fundamental rights of the people of the United States, incorporated in the Constitution as Amendments 1-10, and in all state constitutions. [Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.]. The Bill of Rights had an idea that an individual natural rights should be protected from the government. This document had many ideas from enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes had a great influence on the foundation on the Bill of Rights. How did the ideas of enlightenment leaders have an impact on how the Bill of Rights was created?