Hobbes Vs Locke Compare And Contrast

824 Words4 Pages
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). The “three principal causes of quarrel” for man were competition, distrust, and glory. (Seminar #3: Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, p. 3). Competition was needed in order for man to gain power, distrust was necessary for him to feel secure, and glory ensured that he had a positive reputation. Man also lived in constant fear, and strong authority had to be imposed in order to “keep the peace, and ensure that people worked together to get something done” (p. 3).…show more content…
He suggested that man was “born without innate ideas”, and that he began as a tabula rasa, which is a translation for an erased tablet (John Locke: The Mind as a “Tabula Rasa”). This concept of a tabula rasa stated that “people gradually acquired knowledge” from experience. He believed that man could distinguish from good and bad, and that he was also capable of and free to “order his actions and dispose of his possessions” without having to rely on others (Seminar #3: Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, p. 5). Everyone was equal to each other in terms of “power and jurisdiction being reciprocal”, and “no one having more than another” (p.
Open Document