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.
I am going to choose Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, they were both English philosophers. They had ideas that were similar and then they had their own views on things. They both agreed that a state needs a government, and that people have rights. They also agreed that everyone should have equal rights. Hobbes believed that one person should run the government, as a ruler holds all the power, whereas Locke believed a group of people should run the government. Hobbes viewed humans in a negative way, thinking that when someone is born, they are born selfish and poor. Locke believed that people are born honest.
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.
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
John Locke, a great philosopher, made a great contribution to the Enlightenment ideology for both society and government. His ideas were contradictory to the ideas of Hobbes. Since, they were complete opposites. Locke believed that human nature was good while Hobbes believed that human nature was bad. Hobbes argued that his idea was right, and that for people to escape that horrible way of living, they had to give their rights away to a strong absolute leader or ruler and in return they got law and order.
Thomas Hobbes and John locke were both famous philosophers during the enlightenment period. They were social contract theorists and natural law theorists, they both impacted the modern government, modern science, and the world in general tremendously. However that is where the resemblance ends. If one looks more deeply, they will see that these two philosophers actually had very contrasting opinions. Hobbes was more pessimistic about the world whereas Locke had a more optimistic outlook on his surrounding environment.
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.
John Locke was a philosopher and political scientist. He had many interests and produced a number of writings that influenced future leaders. One of these leaders was Thomas Jefferson, who was involved with the aid of America and the act gaining independence from Britain. The Declaration of Independence and Locke’s views on government contain many similar aspects. These ideas includes the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (natural rights); the protection that is provided by the government for these rights; and the altering or abolishment of government if it fails to provide and protect the rights of the people. 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.
John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu were political philosophers that debated the question of who was best fit to control the government. Locke and Montesquieu shared similar political beliefs such as natural rights and the separation of government powers. However, both philosophers did, in fact, have their personal views that helped them accomplish important achievements. John Locke published “Two Treatises of Government” and “ An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” which present a detail philosophy of the mind and thought. Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” lays out his philosophical project. Locke’s philosophical project consisted of discovering where our ideas come from, what an idea is, and to examine issues of faith
The Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli ideas and perspectives helped to produced the custom or tradition of political realism. Both Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli in their writing were tackling morality and self-interest from different views. Hobbes was a researcher, whose point was to put governmental issues onto an investigative balance; he as a result employed a strict coherent way to deal with his work. Interestingly, Machiavelli personality were mainly active; he worked, principally, as a common worker of the Florentine Republic. In this research I will explain the different ways, which they used and how the difference they made has made the comparative views of human nature.
Thomas Hobbes has been famous for his philosophies on political and social order. In many of his scholastic works, he maintains the position that in the presence of a higher authority the duty of the rest of mankind is to simply obey. The discourse on this essay will focus on his views expressed in his book The Leviathan. In this book Hobbes’ views are fundamentally entrenched in his description that in a society with no higher authority life would be nasty, short and brutish (?) .This essay will engage in discussion by first laying out the conceptual arguments of anarchy and the human state of nature.
In addition to new articles, one can also find many of Hobbes and Locke’s principles to many different songs from throughout time. One song that exhibits some of the principles of Thomas Hobbes is “Where is the Love?” by Black Eyed Peas (youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc). This song has to do with a person who is looking at the world today with disgust. This person sees all of the things wrong with the world and wants to know why people act the way that they do. The song sings about how people are selfish and only thinking about themselves and some guidance is needed to help the world. This has to do with Hobbes’ ideals for a couple of reasons. The lyrics in the song paint the same picture that Hobbes does in his vision of the state of nature.