The Influence of Locke and Hobbes on Government

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

Imagine a world were only one person had the sovereignty of a nation through his bloodline and was not chosen by the people of the nation. This form of government is known as absolute monarchism which was practiced since the beginning of the middle ages till this day (Pope Francis, Vatican City). When it comes to a monarchy, it is composed of an individual(s) (king or queen) who reigns till his death and has a divine right appointed by God to be the ruler. The divine right was a doctrine that plead in favor of absolute monarchism, which means that the power of the rulers came by God’s authority and could not be downsized by any earthly organization such as the government or even the parliament. The Queen Elizabeth I, ‘The Virgin Queen’, also

In cases where both the subjects and the monarch are happy with shared views on absolute ruling properly, the ruler should first unify his people to have the same goals as him which is to help their country be successful powerfully and financially. If the absolute monarch uses his power to his advantage, then the the subjects would not share the same view as their monarch, because they are living in poverty and unfair conditions, whereas the king is living in luxury and enjoying all the food they please. The subjects' view depend greatly on how they live their life, they might want everyone to live equally with enough food and money to get by, and to get rid of the gap between the powerful and the powerless. The rulers and the subjects have one ideal in common which is to help their country expand and prosper. Both the ruler and the subjects' views are so different since they are leading such contrasting lives, but a common ground they have is their country. They want their country to be great and powerful and they both hold much pride in living and calling it their

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

Change is in the inevitable byproduct of society. As societies evolve they change according to the life style of the people who inhabit them. Without change, society would never progress and thus would be frozen in a single moment in time. Thomas Hobbes and John Lock were two English philosophers who observed tremendous changes in English politics between the years of 1640 and 1690. In closely examining the views of both of these philosophers in subject areas such as the nature of man in society, the relationship between a society and its government, and the affect that both philosophers’ novels had on the government, it can be concluded that both Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies created prominent change in the methods of government.

James Madison, one of the American Founding Fathers famously wrote in The Federalist that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.” From his 1651 text, The Leviathan, it is clear from his advocacy of philosophical absolutism that Hobbes would have strongly agreed with Madison, especially about human beings needing government to counter the what he believes to be the state of nature. Conversely, in his 1651 Second Treatise of Government, John Locke advocates constitutionalism, or a limited government, which not only protects citizens from the state of nature, but also empowers their rights through. 17th century philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke would have both agreed with Madison in varying degrees, in spite of their polarizing philosophies about the relationship between governments and the governed.

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.

When I glance around school, there is one issue that is on everyone's minds and that is the Presidential election. On one hand you have the perfect argument for Lockean democratic principles, a woman who is the most qualified person to ever run for president and the right person to fill our highest office, whose rules are based on Locke’s principles. On the other hand, you have a dangerous demagogue, who appeals to our worst instincts as Americans and has demeaned every minority group and treats women like second-class citizens, a wonderful reason to have Hobbesian principles determining our leadership.

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.

during the enlightenment there were many decisions on government and power hobbes and locke had many topics that they agreed and disagreed on. one of the topics is what is the natural state of mankind before forming a government hobbes and locke agreed on state of nature. another topic is on divine right or social contract hobbes and locke agreed on social contract. another topic was why government the disagreed on it hobbes said to protect us from ourselves locke said to protect our natural rights. where does sovereignty reside hobbes said the monarch of king locke said the people they disagreed once again. can a government’s power be limited locke said yes while hobbes said no he wants the government to have

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

Analyzing Thomas Hobbes and John Locke’s Political Theories and Justifying if these Governmental Officials Have Legitimate Reason To Hold Secrets from the Public

A form of government ruled by one person whose authority is not restricted by law or governing bodies is absolutism. It is arguable if this form of government can truly be successful due to its impression left throughout the course of history. Justification of absolutism by Thomas Hobbes, Jacques Benigne Bossuet, and analysis of Louis XIV rule reveal why absolutism in ineffective. Due to its removal of self-authority, vulnerability to a power, and the possibility of weakening a country make absolutism inefficient.

First, Hobbes addresses the purpose of government. This is important (make stronger)because without a clear definition, governments inevitably fail. A ruler’s primary objective must be to preserve life and maintain peace at all costs. In the absence of government, men revert to the “state of nature”. The state of nature refers to when men are ruled only by their fleshly desires, and violence, death, and chaos ensue. Authority is necessary to keep these passions in check. In order to do this, government must enforce the laws of nature, which demand that men maintain peace. According to Hobbes, “A law of nature, lex naturalis, is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved.” (Hobbes, 80) Hobbes also states the reason that men create a commonwealth, namely, “of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of war which is necessarily consequent, as hath been shown, to the natural passions of men when there is no visible power to keep them in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants, and observation of those laws of nature.” Government must not oppress the people, but free them from the state of nature enslaving them.

Political theorists emphasize the relationship between humans and their government when examining possible forms of society, for this is the most crucial element of political structure. In nearly every theorized society, humans empower their government, which in turn benefit them. How humans empower their government and the benefits received is where philosophers often differ. For example, Aristotle believes the purpose of politics is to better the lives of the citizens. Their lives are bettered partially through the individual participation of the citizens as through citizens sharing in the administration of justice and the holding of public office. Political involvement is a privilege of citizens, who are free from the necessary tasks of lives like manual laborers. Politics is dependent on good citizenry, which is achieved by upholding a constitution that the collective has approved. Conversely, Hobbes focuses on the protection of his citizens as a purpose of government. As powerful as some men may be, power united is the greatest power according to Hobbes. The belief in unified power is much of the driving force behind Hobbes’ Leviathan and as his purpose for politics. Despite the differences between the two philosophers proposed purpose of politics, both purposes come from the philosophers’ view of the components of society. As the most basic unit of society, human natures drive the purpose of politics in both Hobbes’ and Locke’s forms of government.