Comparing The Views Of Thomas Hobbes And John Locke
The idea of the state of nature allows political theorists to consider and theorize about what life was like before there was suitable societies, and governments. Two prominent theorists that address the state of nature are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. People are inherently evil according to Hobbes, who alleged that individuals will look out for their own self interest before that of anyone else, resulting in a lawless and hostile environment. On the other end of the spectrum is John Locke. Mankind is inherently good according to Locke. He argues that humans have the ability to push personal desires aside and look toward the needs of the group. John Locke presents a viewpoint which is closer to my own. I believe that mankind has the potential
…show more content…
While Hobbes did not believe that there was a moral compass guiding human decisions, and preventing them from committing immoral acts, Locke did. He states that the state of nature is “a State of perfect Freedom to order the Actions and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other man.” (Treatises) Locke argued that we inherently know at a very young age the difference between right and wrong, and that we have some understanding of what is moral. For example, Locke claims that we lack the capacity to harm others, and that it is our role to defend humanity in its entirety. He states that man “has not Liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any Creature in his Possession, but where some nobler use, than its bare Preservation calls for it.” (Treatises) Locke would argue that we are inherently good, and that society is beneficial for humankind. While I agree that mankind does have some innate understanding of right and wrong. I do not believe that we lack the ability to harm others, as evident in our society. What I would argue, is that we have the inborn understanding internally that harming others is wrong. I compare this to the empathy that one might feel when a friend loses a loved one, or there is some kind of natural
While Hobbes did not believe that there was a moral compass guiding human decisions, and preventing them from committing immoral acts, Locke did. He states that the state of nature is “a State of perfect Freedom to order the Actions and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other man.” (Treatises) Locke argued that we inherently know at a very young age the difference between right and wrong, and that we have some understanding of what is moral. For example, Locke claims that we lack the capacity to harm others, and that it is our role to defend humanity in its entirety. He states that man “has not Liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any Creature in his Possession, but where some nobler use, than its bare Preservation calls for it.” (Treatises) Locke would argue that we are inherently good, and that society is beneficial for humankind. While I agree that mankind does have some innate understanding of right and wrong. I do not believe that we lack the ability to harm others, as evident in our society. What I would argue, is that we have the inborn understanding internally that harming others is wrong. I compare this to the empathy that one might feel when a friend loses a loved one, or there is some kind of natural