Differences Between Locke And Hobbes

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. Locke wanted a government to protect our natural rights. Hobbes believed that power resided to the Monarch. Locke believed that power resided to the people. Hobbes believed that a government’s power cannot be limited. Locke believed that a government’s power can be limited. Hobbes believed that people do not have the the right to alter a government. Locke believed that people do have the right to alter a government.

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.

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

However, he generalizes people and puts everyone in a box. Not all people are selfish and seek power. With this in mind, I agree with Locke regarding his view of human nature. He says the majority of people are cooperative and seek to be loved, all the while acknowledging the existence of morally corrupt people, which is why we need a democratic government. I think this theory couldn't be more accurate. Moreover, Hobbes also made a valid point when mentioning the fact that people would give up their powers in exchange for security. In fact, we see this taking place today. We have given up our privacy, especially personal online information, in exchange for our safety and security. Moreover, I lean more towards Locke’s philosophy in that he has a more balanced and realistic

According to Rousseau, the best form of government is a direct democracy (Robison), but since Ralph fails to establish this form of government, the result is the boys falling into corruption and total chaos. Rousseau believes that civil society causes humans to become corrupt. His philosophy is centered upon the idea of “the general will,” which reflects society’s interest in a common good (Younkins). But individual desires can conflict with the general will, and civil society can actually damage the desire for a common good (Bertram). The general will in Lord of the Flies is the need to build shelters, establish a civilization, and most importantly keep the fire going with the ultimate purpose of rescue. However, the boys stop caring about these goals and Ralph is not able to unite them.

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.

As such, he believed in the power of an absolute monarchy to keep the citizens in order. On the other hand, Locke expressed in his book, Two Treatises of Government, that social contracts were created to protect the natural rights of everybody. Because of this, he opposed the idea of an absolute monarchy, and was in favor of a government that gave equal rights to all citizens. Later, Locke’s ideas of a government for the people lead to modern day democracy. Given the difference between the two, John Locke’s method of the social contract is more effective than Thomas Hobbes's method. Effective meaning that the government grants more freedoms to its people while still upholding their natural rights of life, liberty, and property. This is proven by the facts that freedom of speech in countries governed by Locke-esque governments is better than in countries governed by Hobbes-esque governments, because the quality of life (through the Human Development Index) in countries governed by Locke-esque governments is better than in countries governed by Hobbes-esque governments, and because there are more opportunities in countries governed

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. Secondly, it will assess some of the opponent views to repressive government being the sure maintenance of political and social order. Furthermore an assessment of whether the theories of Hobbes are still relevant to the current understanding of International Relations considering the events and processes in this particular stage.

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. Contrastingly, Rawls views democracy as the only way a state can realise justice. Citizens all need a say in how they live their lives and this improves their political lives in the state. Hobbes’ sovereign rule is flawed as he believes each citizen will give up rights and obey a single ruler who has the final say in all decisions. This type of society will eventually crumble, be it by revolution or distrust in the sovereign’s ability; displaying the total failure of law and order while oppressed citizens rise and

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.

Both writers describe man as being intrinsically equal in this state, with Hobbes stating that “nature hath made men so equall, in the faculties of body, and mind…. the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable” (183). In a similar fashion, in his Two Treatises of Government, Locke depicts the state of nature as, “a state also of Equality, whererin all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another…” (269). Regardless, however, both men describe the danger of living in this crude condition, perhaps due to this very equality that exists. In the eyes of Hobbes, the state of nature is the equivalent of a state of war, building on the premise that, “if any two men desire the same thin, which neverthelesse they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (158). Later in his work, Locke further articulates these risks, saying that without the “law of nature” that humans are bound to, everyone may act at their own discretion, leading to a state of persistent conflict (289). To summarize, both refer to the dangers of a state of nature, and describe states of war existing in this primeval

For instance, Hobbes states that “he hath the use of so much Power and Strength 1881 conferred on him” (227) This refers to the sovereign power who the individuals, as a nation, unify their wills allowing for all the power to be given upon one man. The sovereign has many responsibilities towards his subjects ranging from the protection of his people, the education of individuals regarding property and lastly, the creation and application of the law in an equal manner. (229) Even though the sovereign is considered very essential for the wellbeing of his subjects, Hobbes does not allow his subjects any rights to defend themselves against the sovereign, even if he was careless and inconsiderate, creating a sovereign power that is above the law. In Locke’s case, he does not believe in one sovereign power. Instead, he believes that all humans are born both free and equal, in which individuals in the society are governed by natural law. (330) The ‘sovereign power’ in John Locke’s findings relates to the government, as it subsists to help support and keep the people safe. However, if an individual is seeking the protection of their property, they must pursue an executive power to help keep that property safe. (326) This relationship between the subject and the sovereign can be considered very significant because it overshadows the way in which political societies work

Hobbes believed that monarchy was the best form of rule. he believed that once a monarch was elected by the citizens he should have absolute authority.and that the citizens have a duty to obey. Locke believed that the citizen should have a contract with the government. and that we should have representation by voting for the government that will be representing them. he believed that we should have basic rights and freedom.

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. As was previously stated, anarchy’s repeated failure is a clear indication of Hobbes’

Firstly, an absolute monarchy as proposed by Hobbes would require that people relinquish their own rights and to submit to one absolute power, which Locke feels is counterintuitive his understand of humans in the state of nature. A distinctive feature of Locke’s state of nature is perfect freedom for people to carry out their own wills without hindrance. Hence, Locke’s main critique of Hobbes’ absolutism is that people living under a Hobbesian