How Did John Locke's View On Government

Hobbes and Locke both abandoned the thought of the divine right of monarchy. Both did not agree with the fact that the ruler or assembly would have all power over its citizens. So basically they were against Absolutism and their views were that of rebels in their time period. Theses two philosophers both held similar ideas but also have conflicting ideas pertaining to the citizens "social contract" with their rulers, "Natural Condition of Mankind," and sovereignty.

The formation of government is one of the central themes for both Hobbes and Locke. Whether or not men naturally form a government, or must form a government, is based on man’s basic nature. According to Hobbes, a government must be formed to preserve life and prevent loss of property. According to Locke, a government arises to protect life and property. Governments are born of inequality and formed to administer equality.

Not only do Hobbes and Locke have any differences about humans and government, they also have a few similar thoughts. One thought that they share is that no one is superior. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes believed in natural law which means no one can take away your life, liberty or land. John Locke said in document twelve, “Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. ”This means that no one in Lockes or Hobbes’ eyes should take life, someones health, their freedom or their and other personal possessions.

Hobbes ' view in Leviathan aims at ensuring civil order, which means for him the absolute power of the government, or the Leviathan, which power the people have given him through the social contract. Locke, on the other hand, keeps much more power in the hands of the people through the legislature, which means, in effect, majority rule. Locke was also deeply concerned with maintaining the rights of the people, especially the right to own property. Locke 's political view produces a much more democratic system, while Hobbes ' produces a much more authoritarian, if not totalitarian, system. Both Locke and Hobbes start their political analysis with reference to the state of nature. However, their definitions of this state of nature stand in stark contrast to one another. The differences on their perception of the state of nature correspond to the final conclusions of what is important in a civil society. The contrasting perceptions of the state of nature on the part of these two philosophers are crucial, because they use those perceptions as the foundations for the political

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are comparable in their basic political ideologies about man and their rights in the state of nature before they enter a civil society. Their political ideas are very much similar in that regard. The resemblance between Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies are based on a few characteristics of the state of nature and the state of man. Firstly, in the state of nature both Hobbes and Locke agree that all men are created equal, but their definitions of equality in the state of nature slightly differ. According to Locke, “…in the state of nature… no one has power over another…” Locke’s version or idea of equality in the state of

John Locke was born in a small village just outside of England known as Wrington in 1632. He spent much of his childhood in the West Country, but was eventually sent to Westminster School in London when he was a teenager. He would later attend the University of Oxford in 1652, followed by the Royal Society, where his fascination and interest in modern philosophy from people such as Rene Descartes would turn him to medicine and experimental philosophy. His study of medicine was done under the tutelage of Thomas Sydenham, whose knowledge of natural theology had a major effect on Locke’s philosophical views. His growing education of medicine caught the interest of Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, in which he was offered a job. When Locke accepted, he moved into Shaftesbury’s home and became his personal physician.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are often viewed as opposites, great philosophers who disagreed vehemently on the nature and power of government, as well as the state of nature from which government sprung. Hobbes’ Leviathan makes the case for absolute monarchy, while Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argues for a more limited, more representative society. However, though they differ on certain key points, the governments envisioned by both philosophers are far more alike than they initially appear. Though Hobbes and Locke disagree as to the duration of the social contract, they largely agree in both the powers it grants to a sovereign and the state of nature that compels its creation.

The key differences in the views of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on the purpose of government lie within their contrasting views of the natural human state. Hobbes believed that people are naturally selfish, only acting in their own best interest, while Locke believed that people are naturally good, meaning that they can be trusted to govern themselves. Due to their differing beliefs regarding innate human state, their ideas regarding government varied greatly -- the two men were practically opposites. Hobbes believed that, due to their inborn selfish nature, people could not be trusted with democratic rule. Due to this fact, Hobbes argued for absolute authority to be given to one man, like a king. Hobbes believed that government is meant to

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are considered to be two of the most influential philosophers. Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Two Treatises on Government share many similar themes, such as the meaning of the social contract, the state of nature, the natural rights of men and the role of a ruler/head of state. Despite these shared themes, they each have very different views on each of these subjects. Many of these differences can be attributed to the different times that Hobbes and Locke were living in when they each published their theories and to their different social situations. Hobbes wrote Leviathan was a Royalist during the English Civil War, meaning he believed in an absolutist form of government.

In his state of nature people were wicked, selfish, and cruel, would act on behalf of their best interests, and could not be trusted to govern themselves. This state of nature is a “war of all against all,” people will constantly destroy each other in a pursuit of power. The purpose of Hobbes’ government was to keep law and order. John Locke on the other hand favored a representative government, such as a Democracy. Hobbes believed humans were free naturally, and had a foundation independent of any government.

Marwa Answar Introduction to Political Ideas Prof. Marasco March 4, 2017 Take-Home Exam #2 The relationship between the government and its citizen prolonged to a controversial topic of debate. In the current Political era we saw the rise and the fall in the popularity of different viewpoints, vary between completely collective views to the entirely liberal ones. John Locke and Benjamin Constant well known Political theorist believed that the key to well developed Civil Society is that the citizen of that said society is exercising their liberty and political participation. This is where the relationship between the government and its people goes hand in hand to create some sort of alliance and trusting their government to represent their

Contrasting Hobbes and Locke Nearly two-hundred and twenty-five years ago the United States of America chose to fight a Thomas Hobbes government, with the hope of forming a John Locke institution. The ideas of these men lead to the formation of two of the strongest nations in the history of the world: Great Britain followed by the United States. Thomas Hobbes viewed the ideal government as an absolute monarchy, due to the chaos of the state of nature in contrast, John Locke’s ideal government was a democracy due to his beliefs of the equality of men. These men have shared a few of the same beliefs, but mainly contrast each other.

Even though both Hobbes and Locke have compelling thoughts and opinions on human nature and government, I find Locke’s philosophies much easier to agree with. Similar to Locke, my belief on human nature is that all humans are able to be reasonable and have morals, but I do also realize that all humans do have some selfishness in them – some more than others. Unlike Hobbes, however, I do not believe that everyone is controlled by their own selfish desires. Some people might be, but the majority aren’t. This is why I believe that we should be able govern ourselves, and have a place in our government. I completely reject Hobbes’ philosophy that we should relinquish our natural rights to the government, because I believe that our natural rights

Locke and Hobbes’s ideas quarreled with one another as they we drastically different from one another. Some points matched up such as, the fact that men should be governed. One major point that contradicted each other was that Locke believed that man should consent to be governed and have a say in the government. Hobbes believed that man should be governed and have no say over who their ruler is or what laws they are to abide. Locke believed as well that men are naturally free. Hobbes believed man mustn’t be free or they will be at a natural state of war with one another. This means that they must be governed and suppressed. Their views created a spectrum we can now place different political systems on to.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are regarded as social contract philosophers. They theorized the outcomes of life in pre-political societies called the State of Nature. In their respective works the Leviathan and Second Treatise of Government, they discuss the conception of human beings living in an anarchical state and the conception of a legitimate government subsequently. Hobbes and Locke have distinctly different conceptions of human kind and the need for legitimate governments. Their respective conceptions directly reveal how individuals in each society can judge their rulers. Hobbes has a pessimistic view on human kind. He thinks that individuals are interested only in themselves. Locke, on the other hand has an optimistic view that humans