Similarities Between Locke And Hobbes

Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race

To Locke, the “State of Nature” is a state in which every human being is his own king, who answers to no higher authority than his own conscience and will. Although this “State of Nature” offers complete freedom; this freedom is accompanied by an amorphous mass of fears and insecurities that stem from devolution that Locke called the “State of War”. The “State of War” occurs when one individual tyrannizes another (either to enslave him or to take over his property) and the victim of this relationship rightfully decides to defend himself. In the “State of War” the tyrant tries to deprive the individual of the rights that he is naturally entitled to.

Locke and Hobbes started with a central notion that people with similar “state of nature” would on their own accord come together as a state. Locke believed that individual would not perpetually be at war with each other. He believed humans began with a state of natural characteristics of absolute freedom with no government in site. Hobbes work differs from that of Locke’s because he felt people needed a strong central authority to ward off the inherent evil and anarchic state of man. Locke believed that within the state of nature man would have stronger morals and thus limit their actions. Locke also, credited people with the ability to do the right thing within a group. And the natural rights and civil society where Hobbes differentiated with this by believing that people had to resolve their natural rights and the their were privileges granted by the sovereign. Locke believed the relationship between citizens and government took the form of a social contract, in which in exchange for order and protections provided by institutions the citizens agree to surrender some of the freedoms within the state of nature. This was also, agreed that power of the state was not absolute but exercised according to law. If broken by the state it forfeits and the contract becomes void. This allots for the citizens of the state to have a “voice” and power for change to replace the government with moral obligation by the governed. Hobbes believed absolute power was the price man should

Human nature is a cruel mistress that depending on a person’s view on the world can be really on either ok or really bad. In only isolated situations does human nature lead people to do true good while in general human nature leads to bad decisions and equally bad results. Philosophers have all written about human nature in their commonwealths as well as in their imagined states of nature. Thomas Hobbes in his book, Levithan, and John Locke in his second treatise in his book, Two Treatises on Government, both talk extensively about human nature.The pair take two different approaches to explaining human nature. Hobbes argues that human nature is horrific which in turn makes the state of nature war in which people fear death and thus seek a covenant with a strong government to protect them from themselves. Locke, on the other hand, believes that human nature is not that bad and that people can live peacefully but eventually sign a contract to obtain a more comfortable life. Despite the fact that the two take very different stances on human nature, the true essence of human nature is a balanced mix of their two beliefs in which humans are not wholly bad but they still seek government to ensure their survival. This overall means that humans have the capacity to coexist but also realize that the self-governance is an ideal that they cannot match.

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

In defining political legitimacy, many theorists put forth a distinct set of values that frame their view on the authorities’ right to rule and citizen’s obligation to follow. Theorists such as Hobbes and Locke, both of their account on political legitimacy might look quite similar at first glance, because each theorized about the nature of mankind and the right political systems that would meet the needs of individuals. However, in Hobbes’ perspective, political authority does not pre-exist in individual’s state of nature, rather, it is created by the social contract and serves to ensure self-preservation which is threatened in a state of nature. In contrast, Locke thought that the social contract does not create authority, but that political authority is embodied in individuals and pre-exists in the state of nature, all individuals thus have the moral obligation to respect those rights made by authorities. In my point of view, Locke’s idea sounds more compelling than that of Hobbes’, because it allows individuals to have their own liberties free from an oppressive sovereign and prevents danger posed by absolute freedom.

John Locke (1689) and Thomas Hobbes (2010) share a common underlying concern: establishing a social contract between the government and the governed. To be legitimate, government must rest in the final analysis on the “consent” of the governed, they maintain. They also share a common view of humanity as prone to selfishness (Morgan, 2011 p. 575-800). Given the modern era, Hobbes views of the state of nature and government seem antiquated; no longer do the masses wish to be subservient to anyone man without question. Lockean principals are now the base for today’s modern, just, prosperous and free states.

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;

The state of nature can be characterized as the state before civil society, before government where all men agreed to enter into a social contract. Locke and Rousseau both believed that men were not savages as some might believe. The state of nature was in some cases even better than what we have become today. In fact, both Locke and Rousseau believed that in the state of nature all men had natural rights and followed natural God given or inherent laws that signified the freedom of men from tyranny.

The English revolutionaries, found in Parliament, believed that kings were subject to be law as well as them, and followed a principled course in order to These revolutionaries had certain principles they followed, and people who preached principles. Thomas Hobbes, who believed in absolutism, and constitutionalism, and John Locke, who preached for national rights . Throughout the years, there are many different arguments between kings and Parliament over these principles. The first argument arose with James I and Parliament in 1597. The second arose with Charles I and Parliament in .

According to Hobbes, the absence of authority delineates the state of nature. Hobbes believes that all men are equal in spite of the fact that some may appear smarter or tougher than others. In addition, humans are in perpetual state of war as they are self-centered and will often be willing to do anything that is at their personal interests (Hobbes, 1994). Locke however maintains that in the state of nature, humans live in accordance with reason and that there is no “superior” to act as the judge. Locke is of the view that the state of nature differs from the state of war, and that it contains equality and each person has identical powers (Locke, 2005).

Both Locke and Hobbes have similarities because they both understand that all humans are equal. They both want to bring out and care everything that preserve their life and wanted no restriction to exercise their natural liberty rights. Even though they might agree that all humans are equal but they both have different ideas of equality and affect it is in their society. Hobbes believe that people are naturally equal and you don’t have to work for it. Some individuals might be weak but some have the ability to handle different situations at times.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both share the common vision of the role of a social contract to maintain order in a state. However, their philosophies were cognizant of a sharp contrasting concept of human nature. This essay aims to compare and contrast the social contracts of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in respect to their definition of natural law. This essay will first analyze the pessimistic Hobbesian approach to the state of nature, the inherit optimistic approach of Locke, and then observe how their definitions directly affect their social contract.

The intent of this paper is to look more closely at what Hobbes and Locke wrote concerning the pre-political or pre-social state called the State of Nature; and the transition from the State of Nature to society, referred to as the social contract.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a