“In Two Treatise of Government,Locke argued that people formed governments to protect their natural rights.The best kind of government he said had limited power and was accepted by all citizens.”(Ellis and Esler 183)…
The lack of an impartial judge is a defining characteristic of the state of nature, and this lack of a common judge can lead to confusion and violence therefore leading to the state of war. The state of nature and the state of war are not two separate concepts but the state of nature has the fundamental problem and civil government is the solution for the problems of the state of nature.…
In favor of Hobbes, he does make several valid points. His theory in regards to constant competition applies to this day, as people constantly find themselves in situations where they meet others that are of equal physical strengths and could be faced with a conflict as a result. Despite the points that Hobbes makes, his theory is overall negative, as living in a constant state of fear and paranoia is absolutely no way to live one’s life. Rousseau is very pertinent to remind others of how life was before society and technology took over. Life was extremely simple, and everyone was fairly alright with living alone and focusing on themselves and their life. If today’s society was the same as it was over a thousand years ago, almost no one would…
Lastly, both Hobbes and Machiavelli agree in their opinion of man what is one that is very negative. In the novel The Prince, Machiavelli states that men are “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive, and deceiving, avoiders of danger, eager to gain” (Machiavelli < 1542 > 2006). Similarly, in the novel Leviathan, Hobbes states how the life of a man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes < 1651 > 2009). This shows how both Machiavelli and Hobbes see men and their lives as very negative aspects, but differ in what there perspectives are of it. Machiavelli explains how men are unreliable and not worth trusting when Hobbes is explaining how life naturally is terrible and without sovereignty, life and man are nothing.…
Locke agrees with Hobbes that the purpose of government is to create order in society but contends that people are reasonable and would cooperate with each other and could rebel if ruler were tyrant. Ruler stays in power only as long as he has consent of those governed. He said people had natural rights, including right to life,…
The founders believed that the power of government should be limited, so it doesn't trample on peoples' natural rights. The framers thus wrote in guarantees that the government could not usurp individual freedoms. Locke believed that citizens gave their consent to the government so that society would operate freely and safely. Government should ensure equal opportunity and protection of political and property rights. The individual is obligated to participate in the political process, but abide by the government's rules. Hobbes is more pessimistic about how violent the state of nature would be and is therefore willing to give the government more power than Locke is. Yes, Americans seem happy that the government has power, but individuals retain rights as well. Unlike many countries, the United States has never had a revolt against its government in the last 200 years (The Civil War was something very…
Many philosophers, such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, have discussed over the years if he human race is naturally good or evil. People than choice their side of the argument, one side believing that humans have a basically good nature that is corrupted by society, while the other side believes that humans have a bad nature that is kept in check by society. As John Locke believes that the human race is good, it is reasonable to accept as true because we are born neutral, with free will, and fear of a higher power.…
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were to philosophers with opposing opinions on human nature and the state of nature. Locke saw humanity and life with optimism and community, whereas Hobbes only thought of humans as being capable of living a more violent, self-interested lifestyle which would lead to civil unrest. However, both can agree that in order for either way of life to achieve success there must be a sovereign.…
Therefore, a state is in place for only one reason, to help those people who gave the state its power. Locke also believed that people have certain basic rights that cannot be taken away and any ruler who violates those rights is out-stepping his realm of power. These beliefs translated to his idea that religious tolerance was necessary in order for the state to be successful. The safest way a state could hold authority is to split the state into branches; giving each branch only as much power as needed to achieve its purpose. This he stated would stop one person or group from gaining excessive power and possibly abusing that power to the harm of the people. Hobbes held quite different beliefs regarding political authority. He believed that people are inherently selfish and greedy, and thus must have rulers with absolute power. If the ruler of a state does not have supreme and absolute power, Hobbes believed that the state will fall apart and descend into civil war. Hobbes who was living through the English civil war believed that civil war was the absolute worst thing that could happen to a state. While Hobbes believed in an absolute political power, he also believed that, unless the people were harming each other, the monarch should not bother them and should keep to…
I believe that Hobbes is right that people are just self centered and rude. If everyone were good then why would we have prisons?We have prisons because there is always somebody doing something bad.Everything bad that has ever happened was due to the person being selfish.…
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were known as Social Contract Theorists, and Natural Law Theorists. The two men both had very strong views on freedom and how a country should be governed. Thomas Hobbes had more of a Pessimistic view while John locke had more of an Optimistic view. Hobbes and Locke believed in a type of Social Contract between the Government and being governed. Hobbes believed in Absolute Monarchs and Locke believed in the will of people being governed. Hobbes opposed constitutionalism because of his pessimistic appraisal of human nature. They both had extremely different views on government, but the bases of their arguments were similar. They both used reason to justify their ideas, rather than divine right. Although both men acknowledged that there was a God, He played a very small role in their ideologies. I believe that both Hobbes and Locke are genuinely correct.…
Some people believe a government is there to help protect the people in the country, while others believe it is there to be the sole power of the country. In Two Treatises, John Locke states his opinion about a more democratic government very clearly. Locke believes that the government is there to protect the people’s rights and that everyone should be treated equally. Thomas Hobbes is a polar opposite of Locke. In Hobbes’ document Leviathan, he makes it evident that he would rather have a dictatorship or a monarchy.…
The concept of human security, which has had a crucial place in human's societal history, has been argued over by many great philosophers throughout mankind’s existence. Two pioneer thinkers of political philosophy, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, theorized state of nature typologies, which are the core of social contract theory, and created a concept of modern security, even in the 17th century. Hobbes created a contract entrusting absolute power to the sovereign, which thrived off of the individual's duty and responsibilities to the government. Contrary to Hobbes, Locke recognized the secure relationship between individuals' rights and liberties and the role of the sovereign. These two philosophers revolutionized liberal thinking in the height of the enlightenment age in which many philosophers questioned and argued over the relationship between the state and the individual. Hobbes and Locke, two brilliant thinkers, are notorious for being the founders of social contract liberalism. Before one can look at each philosopher’s social contract, we must first define what separated their thinking from the standard at that time, and what actually made them liberal thinkers. There had been one way of thinking in governmental rule for thousands of years which had been formed around the tyrannical ideals of hereditary privilege, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. These governmental ideals, which extremely lacked rights for the individual, had been spread all over the world for thousands of years and throughout many empires. What made Locke and Hobbes such liberal thinkers, was their ideas of a mutual relationship between the individual and the state. This was a mutual contract in which both parties had an agreement where they could coincide, benefit, and enforce the liberal ideals of liberty, equality, and justice. Now one must dive into both philosophers proposed social contract, to get a…
“I am at the point of believing, that my labor will be as useless as the commonwealth of Plato. For Plato, also is of the opinion that it is impossible for the disorders of the state ever to be taken away until sovereigns be philosophers . . . I recover some hope that one time or other this writing of mine may fall into the hands of a sovereign who will consider it for himself, for it is short, and I think clear.”…
Looking how each of these philosophers looked at a social contract, both Hobbes and Locke had different views on a social contract then we believe it to be. Social contract is how people decide to have a government and talks about how much authority can the government have over the people. Some similarities are to prevent violence against fellow citizens. For Tomas Hobbes, this means curbing the natural state of chaos. For John Locke, this means preventing any and all violations of individual rights. Both Hobbes and Lock base their theory on a harmonium naturalis, a natural state of humans. This is a situation where everyone is totally free because there is no interference of laws, but where man fears death every day. Hobbes called it a war…