Hobbes ' theory suggests that humans are naturally evil, selfish and "capable of killing any other" (Williams). In the novel, Roger, one choirboy, embodies these attitudes. Physically described as "a slight, furtive boy whom no one knew, who kept to himself with an inner intensity of avoidance and secrecy," (Golding 18) with black hair and a dark complexion. As the plot progresses, he becomes barbarous, ruthless and sadistic-- a complete savage. Humankind in the "state of nature," chaotic and violent as there is no authority to reinforce order and prosecute anybody who violates them since the government does not take part in such circumstances.
Such a caveat, indeed promoted aspects of liberalism as it denied the unconditional absolutism of monarchy that had been driven in much of Europe and certainly did not accept that divine monarchy, pushed by the royalists at the time was a legitimate system. Leviathan suggested an uneasy alliance of liberalism and totalitarianism for the securing of peace and stability, which Hobbes saw as the principle condition of freedom and liberty. Hobbes, moved away from royalist thought in other ways as well. While royalists believed that the people should give their absolutely loyalty to a system of sovereignty based on dynasty and primogeniture, Leviathan rejected such principles. Instead, whatever form of absolutely power could provide peace was the best suited solution, whether that be a protector such as Cromwell or a sovereign like Charles II, there was nothing intrinsically good or valuable about Charles II’s family or dynasty that made him fit to rule in Hobbes view.
In many ways, the Blue Whale is equivalent to a government. The leviathan of animals is the Blue Whale. Because it is great in size, it rules over the smaller creatures of the ocean, projecting its dominance as it roams fearlessly. Whereas the Blue Whale is the supreme figure of the ocean, the government is the supreme figure of the land. Although many forms of government exist, the best type of government, according to Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan, is absolutism - a political system in which a sovereign has total, unrestrictive control over everyone and everything.
Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his Discourse on Inequality and Social Contract each attempt to explain the rise of and prescribe the proper management of human society. At the foundation of both philosophies is the principle that humans are asocial by nature, a precept each philosopher interprets and approaches in a different way. Hobbes states that nature made humans relatively “equal,” and that “every man is enemy to every man.” Life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” he says, and “every man has right to everything.” Rousseau outlines primitive asocial man having “everything necessary for him to live in the state of nature” from “instinct alone,” and being “neither good nor evil.”
Burke’s Criticisms of Hobbes’ Social Contract Edmund Burke, after a visit to France in 1773, wrote a pamphlet titled Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) to express his disdain for the events and methods of the French Revolution. Where other political writers of the Enlightenment and Anti-Enlightenment Eras propose theories of politics and government, Burke does not promote a theory, a set of premises, a call to action, or even a succinct conclusion. He rather details his disposition of contractual government and politic science.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two different people who believed two different things. Hobbes believed people would act badly in a state of nature, and that people were evil. However, Locke believed that people would not act badly in a state of nature, for fear that the same will happen to them. I agree with Locke, and support his theory that people would not act abominably in a state of nature for fear that the same would happen to themselves.
In their individual bodies of work, Hobbes and Locke both advocate for their own solutions to escaping the state of nature. Through the use of a collective social contract amongst the population, citizens now find themselves in a society governed by some common arbitrator and leadership. However, the two philosophers approach the concepts of the state of nature and social contract from opposing viewpoints - a contrast which is reflected throughout the majority of their philosophies. The foundational difference throughout their pieces rests on how they view human nature and the innate will of people - be it corrupt and self-servicing or free and capable of reason. This divergence in thought is representative in the way they define key principles, argue for certain stances,
Comparison of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke Introduction Ideas and theories given by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke can be seen parallel on many grounds however a clear distinction appears on their notions on social contract, their apparent notions of human nature, the way both the philosophers relates these notions with their social contract theory? This paper will critically evaluate the viability of notions of both the philosophers and the level these correlations of notions with their social contract theory can be implemented? View under consideration
Natural condition of man according to Aristotle and Hobbes Hobbes and Aristotle are known as influential political philosophers in the world. Both of them have profound and significant doctrines; however, their thoughts about natural condition of man are quite various. According to Hobbes, by nature humans are equal in the faculties of body and mind. He claims that even the weakest man has strength to kill the strongest man because nature gives the same rights to everyone. Among men there is not any inequality that gives exclusive opportunity to a person by nature.
Government is necessary to maintain order in society regardless of era. To what extent government should reign, as well as responsibilities of the reigning force varied greatly among thinkers of the Enlightenment Era. Political philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, agreed on the general idea that that society should be ruled by a governing force, and each implemented a social contract without religious weight; however, Hobbes and Locke each had different theories on the role government would have over the people. These theories have greatly influenced today’s roles of the state and its citizens. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both agreed the citizens of the state would willingly enter into a social contract with their governing body.