What Is The Difference Between Locke's Beliefs On Human Nature And Government

Unlike Hobbes, John Locke honestly believes in the good in man and affirms that they have the ability to maintain a civil society with limited government involvement. He credits man’s want to live in a safe and comfortable environment as the reason why they would come together peacefully, not the aggressive rule of government. Locke also believes that there should be a separation in powers of government in order to properly serve the

As for the sovereignty philosophy that Hobbes came up with was that power should reside in the state or ruler. The sovereign representative or the ruler was to provide safety for the people and to conduct this in a manner that does not harm the people or their well-being. Ultimately Hobbes supported government and stability in government for the well-being of the citizens. In conclusion, Hobbes and Locke both stated that cooperation between government and its citizens was necessary.

Locke seems to build upon Hobbes' ideals describing within the law of Nature, all men are equal and are in a state of perfect freedom to order their own actions. However, it seems Locke clearly understands mans desire for more and temptation to violate human rights of others for personal gain and therefore, inevitable disputes in which life, liberty, and property are in question, laws are established to protect and uphold ones rights. Locke divulges further by stating the law of nature confirms every one has a right to punish transgressors of law to such a degree in which it may hinder violations, preserve the innocent and restrain offenders (Newton, 2004). This is where Locke separates himself from Hobbes theories. Locke concedes punishment only to a degree whereas will hinder a transgressor and only restrain an offender. This should not be confused with Hobbes philosophy of an individual having the right to pass judgement and decide a transgressors fate, once a perceived threat has been subdued. Locke's philosophy seems to indicate a vital importance to exhibit reason and tolerance; a law of morals, unlike Thomas Hobbes philosophical view of do as you please because it is your natural right. John Locke's law of morals set forth Thomas Jefferson's theory of revolution.

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.

Locke had a very different feeling than did Hobbes about government. Locke felt that there should not be a monarch to rule people. He felt that citizens should be heard, there should more of a chance for common people to have a choice in the way their country is run. He thinks that a republic is the best choice. In document eight Immanuel Kant supports Locke’s idea because he said, “‘Have the courage to use your own reason...' nature has long since discharged them from external direction, nevertheless remains under lifelong tutelage…”What Kant meant by that is that even after people were set free from monarchy they still felt and acted as if they still had no say in anything and that they were afraid to speak their mind.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that

Hobbes always found ways working for many affluent and elegant families. Hobbes joined together where activists of the king, members of the parliament and other rich landowners were discussed, and his knowledgeable aptitude brought him closer to power through that benefit (“John Locke: Biography.”) Without a strong government, Hobbes claims, the people will be left alone in a disorganized society (“John Locke: Biography.”) If an individual could do as they please it would lead to violence and conflict. To escape the idea of a chaotic nation, the people instead agreed to a social contract. Hobbes believed a society populated under a sovereign authority must be able to surrender their natural rights in exchange for protection. According to the Declaration of Independence, which states that all men have the right of liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness. Hobbes thought life was the most importance and government should protect your well being. This is prebeavent to the constitution when it included the bill of rights. The bill of rights protected every individual’s freedom, the document contained ten amendments dedicated to preserving citizen’s

I am John Locke. I heard that you're going to have a meeting with the statesman. So, I decided to give you my ideas about the government that would inspire you. As you know it's really important to give citizens their natural rights (life, liberty, and property). Because I believed that everyone was born free, equal, and independent. And the meaning of my natural rights are life: everyone is entitled to live. Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right. Property: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights. Another thing if the government agrees to give citizens their natural rights. I've

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

If a person commits a crime, the people have a right to punish him. If one man kills another man's sheep, then the people have the right to kill one of his sheep, without commiting a crime.Locke's theories of government greatly oppose those of Thomas Hobbes, a political philospher who believes in a government headed by an absolute monarch, who has complete control over the entire society. Hobbes says that man is evil, so it is better to give up power to one individual, so that the evil in the society is limited.

The sovereign is in charge of doing whatever he deems necessary yo keep the nation safe. Locke views government as something that is formed by the consent of the people. He created a system, called separation of powers, that prevented the government from abusing its power by dividing it into separate branches, so no branch could be stronger than the other two. Locke also states that if the government ever oversteps its boundaries and abuses its power, that the people have the right to overthrow the government and start anew.The two also have a very different view on what is right and wrong. Locke has a brighter outlook on humanity, saying that men have intrinsic rights that come from their creator. He says these rights are life, liberty, and property ownership. He deems all people equal because they all come from God. Hobbes, on the other hand, believes that right and wrong is purely individual. It varies by person and situation. He says that men, despite mental and physical differences are all equal because a weak man can still kill a strong man. The weak man may have to form an army, but he still has the capability to end the other man’s

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.

In conclusion, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both had different views on government. Locke believed that people should have rights while Hobbes believed otherwise. John Locke’s views were more effective that

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

James Madison and John Locke each created similar but somewhat different ideas about human nature. Whereas John Locke put more hope in human nature, Madison looked down on it with more critical analysis. Locke’s argument may provide few important points in general, but it is Madison who ultimately explained why people work in the specific way we see today and produce the government we enjoy. In fact, some of Locke’s arguments can be tied to Madison’s philosophy and be seen as useful explanations for Madison’s viewpoint toward self-centered human nature.