Differences Between Locke And Thomas Hobbes

Government is necessary to maintain order in society regardless of era. To what extent government should reign, as well as responsibilities of the reigning force varied greatly among thinkers of the Enlightenment Era. Political philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, agreed on the general idea that that society should be ruled by a governing force, and each implemented a social contract without religious weight; however, Hobbes and Locke each had different theories on the role government would have over the people. These theories have greatly influenced today’s roles of the state and its citizens.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both agreed the citizens of the state would willingly enter into a social contract with their governing body. According to Political Philosophy A-Z, a social contract is a contract made by citizens to transfer certain rights to the state. This promotes a relationship between the state and its citizens bearing in mind

“The Condition of Man Is a Condition of War” stated that Hobbes portrayed humans as rational thinkers who sought to obtain power and acted with self-interest. He saw the state of nature without a sovereign as a “state of war,” where the people would live in constant fear and chaos. To prevent this state of fear, there must have been an agreement that the sovereign would protect his citizens and their natural rights if they agreed to lay down their weapons and give up their individual freedoms (“Condition of Man”). “For Hobbes, a social contract bestowing indivisible authority to a sovereign was a necessary evil to avoid the cruel fate that awaited man if a strong power could not keep the destructive impulses of individuals in check” (“Condition of Man”). Thomas Hobbes did not have faith in the good of mankind, and because of this, he believed the citizens should give absolute control of the state to one