Hobbes Vs Locke
In this essay, the approaches of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke will be explored to compare their goals for the ideal sate. Hobbes and Locke were significant political philosophers, predominantly in the 17th Century, most importantly for being natural law and social contract theorists. Hobbes and Locke both vary in their approaches as Hobbes is labelled a pessimist, while Locke is considered an optimist, influencing how they perceive the idea state to look like. The social contract theory was addressed by Hobbes first then Locke later, both theorists examined the relationship between the state and individuals, concluding the theory differently. Boucher and Kelly (2009) introduce us to the differences in opinion, exploiting Locke’s concept that
…show more content…
Hobbes pessimistic views are certainly portrayed through his concept of the social contract, suggesting that man should obey rules in order to avoid death, however, death cannot always be avoided. This concept is extended further as Hobbes desires the formation of an absolute government, believing individuals to be ‘greedy and selfish without a government’ (Heywood 2012, p.36). It is undeniable that Hobbes understands the ideal state to be one with an absolute monarch, with power to punish humans who disobey as he believes them to be ‘brutish’. Boucher and Kelly (2009) understand how Locke’s ideal state differs from Hobbes very significantly through the social contract. They recognise that Locke’s social contract desires to form a political society and an established government, ensuring the idea that all individuals are born ‘free and equal’ (Tannenbaum 2013, p.171). Locke believes that this will ensure humans to retain the right to life and protection of property, preventing chaos and creating order. In addition, while Hobbes suggests humans should always obey the social contract, Heywood (2012) demonstrates that Locke believes humans should have the right to revolt for their rights. Locke puts emphasis on ‘collective right to revolution’ (Tannenbaum 2013, p.181) only if the government abuse the people’s social contracts, however, Hobbes opposed
Hobbes pessimistic views are certainly portrayed through his concept of the social contract, suggesting that man should obey rules in order to avoid death, however, death cannot always be avoided. This concept is extended further as Hobbes desires the formation of an absolute government, believing individuals to be ‘greedy and selfish without a government’ (Heywood 2012, p.36). It is undeniable that Hobbes understands the ideal state to be one with an absolute monarch, with power to punish humans who disobey as he believes them to be ‘brutish’. Boucher and Kelly (2009) understand how Locke’s ideal state differs from Hobbes very significantly through the social contract. They recognise that Locke’s social contract desires to form a political society and an established government, ensuring the idea that all individuals are born ‘free and equal’ (Tannenbaum 2013, p.171). Locke believes that this will ensure humans to retain the right to life and protection of property, preventing chaos and creating order. In addition, while Hobbes suggests humans should always obey the social contract, Heywood (2012) demonstrates that Locke believes humans should have the right to revolt for their rights. Locke puts emphasis on ‘collective right to revolution’ (Tannenbaum 2013, p.181) only if the government abuse the people’s social contracts, however, Hobbes opposed