Similarities Between Locke And Hobbes

Philosophical Comparison (Hobbes & Locke) Hobbes, while being clearly in support of a Unitarian government under one strong leader, is seemingly in juxtaposition to Locke, who holds that any government must conform to the laws established in the legislation. Hobbes, reacting to the brutal and violent civil war taking place in England, was writing in protest to what he saw. Hobbes believed that in this state nothing would, or could be achieved. He believed that what would unify the state was not a division of factions, but rather one rather only one, the commonwealth. He believed that the commonwealth had to sign over their independence to one man, whom they trusted, and whom they believed could make the best decisions, and had to live in knowledge that the man would provide aid when needed. While it appears that Hobbes is talking about absolutism, the difference in Hobbes’ political writing, is that he believes that
He believed there needed to be a legislation that would limit the power of a ruler, in that a ruler could not become omnipotent. Locke, reacting to the Glorious Revolution, saw that the concept of one leader with absolute power did not work. Seen in James 1 & 2, and Charles 1 & 2, absolutism was a sure-fire recipe for disaster, and military dictatorship seen through Oliver Cromwell did not work as well. What Locke proposed was a constitutional monarchy, a monarchy with limited powers, as the law applied to the ruler, as well as any of the citizens in the state. The idea presented was met with a large proponent base, and as such, when William and Mary took power from Charles II, the Bill of Rights was put into power. This bill limited the power of the King or Queen, and granted basic civil rights to all. This Bill was a turning point in the constitutionalism of England, as it marked a pivotal point in establishing guidelines set forth for