Comparing Thomas Hobbes And John Locke
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher and political theorist best known for his book the Leviathan. His major school of thought was to question how we as a society should obey rules and to what extent should the government interfere with the society. Similarly, John Locke who was another English philosopher and political theorist was best known for his work on the Second treatise on the government. Locke believed that Man tended to be naturally moral whereas Hobbes disagreed. In this essay, I will be contrasting both accounts and analysing the view points on the state of nature.
Hobbes’s describes the state of nature as “..nasty, brutish and short” (Hobbes, 2009). He believed that people tended to be naturally cruel and greedy and that …show more content…
This belief was polar opposite to Hobbes. Locke’s was of thinking was that people are born with non-negotiable rights and that they have the right to own property. Furthermore, Locke did not swallow the idea of an absolute monarch and took the path of a democracy. In regards to Hobbes, people give up their rights to the monarch in return for conservation and protection.
Another essential difference between the two theories is the approach to man. Locke was more lenient in his belief in humans for instance people where good by nature and they could learn from there experiences. Meanwhile, Hobbes speculated people as wicked “every man for every man”.
In terms of government, Locke agreed that people can be trusted to govern themselves to make good and rightful decisions, given people are supplied with the right information. He then took this further to conclude that the main principle of a government is to protect the individual liberties, along with the permission to defy against an offensive government if need be. Locke’s views on moral law stated that people should not follow blindly instead, freely. Thus suggesting that the monarch has certain responsibilities towards man. The monarch must take into account the common peoples perspective to earn trust rather than enforce ruling. Hobbes approach was that the government was to keep law and order only and that people have no say in their government, even if the monarch was disruptive and
Hobbes’s describes the state of nature as “..nasty, brutish and short” (Hobbes, 2009). He believed that people tended to be naturally cruel and greedy and that …show more content…
This belief was polar opposite to Hobbes. Locke’s was of thinking was that people are born with non-negotiable rights and that they have the right to own property. Furthermore, Locke did not swallow the idea of an absolute monarch and took the path of a democracy. In regards to Hobbes, people give up their rights to the monarch in return for conservation and protection.
Another essential difference between the two theories is the approach to man. Locke was more lenient in his belief in humans for instance people where good by nature and they could learn from there experiences. Meanwhile, Hobbes speculated people as wicked “every man for every man”.
In terms of government, Locke agreed that people can be trusted to govern themselves to make good and rightful decisions, given people are supplied with the right information. He then took this further to conclude that the main principle of a government is to protect the individual liberties, along with the permission to defy against an offensive government if need be. Locke’s views on moral law stated that people should not follow blindly instead, freely. Thus suggesting that the monarch has certain responsibilities towards man. The monarch must take into account the common peoples perspective to earn trust rather than enforce ruling. Hobbes approach was that the government was to keep law and order only and that people have no say in their government, even if the monarch was disruptive and