Hobbes Locke Sovereignty

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.

CQ: Whose is a more effective method of the social contract – Locke or Hobbes?

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.

In the order of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, as time went on, the positive image of the government declined, and the negative image of humans in a state of nature became more positive. The reason that Locke’s philosophies are the most influential in democracies in today’s world is because his thinking was much more moderate than the extreme ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau; Hobbes believed humans were inherently evil and Rousseau believed humans were inherently good. Contrastingly, Locke believed that humans would fair well in a state of nature, but could utilize government as a source of order and benefit in life. In the end, their thoughts of the state of humans in a natural realm are what motivated their various thoughts about government. Although it is difficult to see what a human society would be like under complete anarchy, through the trials and errors of different countries and different political regimes, the philosophies of the different thinkers have shown their various benefits and

The historical development of the world from 1690 to 1830 wouldn’t be what it was if it weren’t for John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. Locke’s Second Treatise not only sparked individualism, but also revolutions, and was a guide to the creations of declarations around the world. Two main revolutions and declarations that Locke’s ideas inspired were the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

A State of Nature is a society without government or laws. Locke believed when men became overpopulated enough to the point where land becomes scarce, then men needed law beyond the natural law. The natural law, although valid, was not always kept. The transgressor, who defies the natural law, can be punished by all men.

When comparing the two different accounts of English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke we must take into consideration a number of things such as the age in which they lived and the time in which they produced their philosophical writings. We will however find out that these two philosophers actually have a couple of things in which agree on even though most of their opinions clash. On one side we have Thomas Hobbes who lived in the time of the English Civil War (1642-1651) who provides a negative framework for his philosophical opinions in his masterpiece Leviathan and who advocates for philosophical absolutism . On the other side we have John Locke, living during the glorious revolution (1688-1689) he presents a positive attitude in his book The Second Treatise of Government and advocates for philosophical and biblical constitutionalism.

There may also be some differentiating ideas regarding these two sources. An example of this may be that, even though Jefferson and Locke agreed that the people should be able to overthrow the government if their rights were encroached upon, Hobbes believed that this would lead to a state of nature, which wouldn’t end greatly. The first way that the Declaration of Independence and

Thomas Hobbes proposed that the ideal government should be an absolute monarchy as a direct result of experiencing the English Civil War, in which there was internal conflict between the parliamentarians and the royalists. Hobbes made this claim under the assumption that an absolute monarchy would produce consistent policies, reduce conflicts and lower the risk of civil wars due to the singular nature of this ruling system. On another hand, John Locke counters this proposal with the view that absolute monarchies are not legitimate as they are inconsistent with the state of nature. These two diametrically opposed views stem from Hobbes’ and Locke’s different understandings of human nature, namely with regard to power relationships, punishment, and equality in the state of nature. Hobbes’ belief that human beings are selfish and appetitive is antithetical with Locke’s contention that human beings are intrinsically moral even in the state of nature, which results in Locke’s strong disagreement with Hobbes’ proposed absolute monarchy.

The main philosophy of John Locke, a famous and well-known Enlightenment philosopher, involves his theory of natural law and natural rights given to mankind. In this particular article, entitled “The Consent of the Governed”, part of his work Two Treatises of Government, Locke addresses importance of man’s natural state and its main characteristics, the forming of a government and what it offers and the relationship between a government and its subjects.

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.

The State of Nature, although a state wherein there is no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, is not a state without morality. To Locke, persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which is on Locke’s view the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others with regards to their life, health, liberty, or possessions. This is because we all belong equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are prohibited from harming one another. So, the State of Nature is a state of liberty where persons are free to pursue their own interests and plans, free from interference, and, because of the Law of Nature and the restrictions that it imposes upon persons, it is relatively peaceful.

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.

According to Hobbes, a sovereign, whether the sovereign was placed into power by violence or force, is the only way to secure law and order. For him, if a citizen obeys the sovereign for fear of punishment or in the fear of the state of nature, it is the choice of the citizen. According to Hobbes, this is not tyranny; it is his idea of a society that is successful, one that does not have room for democracy. As a realist, Hobbes has a fierce distrust of democracy and viewed all of mankind in a restless desire for power. If the people are given power, law and order would crumble in Hobbes’ eyes.