John Locke Vs Hobbes Research Paper

In the present assignment, an attempt has been made to evaluate the influence of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on the modern society. At the same time, the connection between the writings of these philosophers and the things that are actually present has also been explored. Both the philosophers were very enlightened thinkers of the 17th century. At the same time, both of them have very strong views regarding human nature and also the role that displayed by the government in the lives of the people. In this regard, Hobbes believed that by their nature, people were selfish but the perspective of Locke was different. He believed that the human beings are good by nature and reasonable and therefore they can self-regulate themselves. However, as a result of these differences, these two philosophers have different outlooks regarding what should be an ideal government. But despite these differences, both of

Many people argue over if the government should be run like Hobbes states with a version of an unlimited government, or as Locke states with a government that is more limited. Government should be run as Hobbes argues, because without government people will become enemies and go to war, man won’t be treated equally, and people won’t be able to have a society.

The three flaws within Thomas Hobbes' theory are that Hobbes’ ideas challenges its own arguments about peace and the State of Nature, the theory fails to acknowledge the people who do not wish to accept the Social Contract, and the Social Contract fails to consider not only the virtue of the citizens, but the Sovereign as well.

He would like to study different types of governments. He thought that a monarchy government was better than democracy because he believed that they were naturally wicked and could not be trusted to govern.

The rhetorical functions of social contract and popular sovereignty are for the protection of property and social order through the general will. Consent constructs social contract and popular sovereignty and with the consent comes the protection of ones life, liberty, and property. Thus, establishing social order. In the beginning, people existed in the world as individuals. However, as men started interacting with each other it was needed for a set of guides for their own protection, which created the idea of the general will. General will in this case is the mutual agreement to give up their rights in the state of nature in order for the protection of their life, liberty, and property. In conclusion, the function of the social contract and popular sovereignty is for the self-preservation of men.

The State is the dominant organization in the country, which is headed by the Government and other bodies. Let’s consider word - government from two sides. We will discuss two ideologies which are belonging to Locke and Hobbes. These ideologies have similar sources, but finally have very different views of ideal government.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are infamous philosophers that shaped modern political theory, philosophy, ethics, etc. This essay seeks to analyze the differences and similarities between the states of nature each philosopher believes to exist. In this context, the term “state of nature” will mean the natural state of human relations without political or societal applications. It will be extremely important to keep in mind that “state of nature refers not to a specific place or time, but to a certain sort of relationship between individuals,” in order to better understand what is meant by Hobbes and Locke . This is the answer to the common question of “when did the state of nature exist in history?” The idea of the state of nature in terms of the lack of societal constructs has never existed, and neither Hobbes nor Locke claim it to have ever existed in that sense. However, every single person is in the state of nature all the time despite the presence of societal constructs. State of nature is really human nature at its core, which cannot be tamed nor extinguished,, though it can be hidden, through societal constructs.

Three political philosophers, Locke, Hobbes, and More, were outspoken and advocated for change that faced both support and scrutiny that each had to argue their points and in some cases met both success and failure. John Locke (1632-1704) was instrumental in driving change during the Glorious Revolution. It was Locke

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were both social contract theorists, and both natural law theorists. All other natural law theorists assumed that man was by nature a social animal. Hobbes believed in other things. Hobbes was infamous for producing numerous similarly unconventional results in physics and mathematics. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes each advocated divergent tenets of human nature and government during the seventeenth century; John Locke promoted an optimistic view of human nature in which they lived under a government that protected the rights of the people; Thomas Hobbes published his perspective of the human soul as negative, believing the only way to combat its evilness by complete suppression under an absolute ruler.

In chapter 1 Locke states it is practically impossible for anyone to claim they received a God given right to rule because no one has capability of Adam. On the other hand political power is the ability to make laws which may include a penalty of death in the event those laws are broken. Locke also explains in chapter one that use of the community to actually keep the community safe is the absolute best practice primarily because political power is simply for the good of the public. I would agree with the part of chapter 1 that states the best way to protect the community is through the use of the community. It makes me think of community policing. For example, police officers have an extensive list of responsibilities. However, through the use of community advocates and assistance they are able to expand their control and responsibilities to individuals not employed by the police force. This will then control things such as community burglaries.

Most communities today rely on a basic form of government whether it be a democracy or a monarchy. If government was taking away the simple fact can be argued that chaos would break loose or people will naturally be peaceful. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both delved into the ideal government of the people. Both agreed in a form of government should be established to keep some kind of peace, but both ideas differed in the way the government function. After analyzing both philosophers, it should be that a government should be established based on human's nature to sin, but Locke’s ideas are perceived to be more developed in a realistic government applied today.

Last is if people have the right to “alter or abolish” a government, rights of revolution?

In a world where absolute rulers rarely exist, it is hard to imagine how Thomas Hobbes would react to our current state of affairs. However, his theories helped shape the landscape of modern political thought. In Leviathan, Hobbes defines the power of a sovereign as being absolute to ensure everyone’s security (136). He describes the state of nature as synonymous to a state of war with “every man, against every man” (82), and the law of nature as “a precept … by which a man is forbidden to do that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same” (84). Individuals form a Commonwealth to escape the state of nature so that “one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defense” (112). This leads to the question: to what extent does Hobbes’ theory of self-interest contradict an individual’s supposed obedience to his sovereign? According to Hobbes, the sovereign assures security to an individual through his absolute power, but obedience to the sovereign does not always correlate with an individual’s self-preservation.

People for hundreds of years have asked what makes a just and fair society. One person who endeavored to answer this question was Thomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes claimed that freedom was good but security is better. He also believed that without government, laws, and society mankind would exist in a state of nature where life would be nasty, brutish, and short. To solve this problem Hobbes believed in creating a social contract and hand over their freedoms to a strong leader. The concern Hobbes points out is that from handing over most freedoms to a strong leader could result in a frighteningly powerful state. From Hobbes idea however three questions about what makes a just and fair society arose. First is the Society safe? Second does

The question of state involvement in society has long been discussed by philosophers, thinkers and theorists. In this paper, I will argue that governments exist to serve the people, administer justice and security of society but must be limited in their involvement in day to day life. I will prove this by presenting three arguments based off the ideas of influential thinkers before me. My first argument will build off the work of John Locke’s theory that governments are implemented by the people for our convenience to protect our natural rights. I will then show a possible objection to this premise by discussing Thomas Hobbes’ strong sole leader theory. Secondly, I will then utilize Robert Nozick’s theory of a “night watchman” state to argue