Social Contract Theroy
In this essay I will be discussing Thomas Hobbes’ and John Locke’s interpretation of the social contract theory. I will then be evaluating Locke’s argument that his conclusions differ from Hobbes’ as he claims. My thesis is the following: John Locke’s argument that his conclusions are different from Thomas Hobbes’ conclusions is not valid. He makes no claim as to why people are motivated to enter into a social contract; he also does not establish where the understanding of personal property comes from.
Thomas Hobbes suggests numerous things about the state of nature and the nature of man under no governing authority. In the state of nature everything is fair game. Everyone has the right to everything present in the world and is not violating any laws when they seek these things. For example, one can steal someone else’s house if they are capable of doing so without violating any laws as there are none in the state of nature. “It is consequent also to the same condition, that there be no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine distinct…” (Leviathan. Chapter 14.) In the state of nature everyone has the right to self defense; this is the right of self preservation which is the only right present under no governing authority. Everyone is also always in competition for what goods are available in the state of nature. Because of scarcity people constantly battle with one another and this becomes the “war of all against all.” The only motive is that of the individualistic nature and in that people are only driven by their desires. This constant battle of self interest makes life in the state of nature “nasty, brutish, and short.” There are universal desires that govern over human nature. “So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.” (Leviathan. Chapter 13) Firstly all humans have a fear of violent death. Hobbes claims that we are all essentially equal despite differences in
Thomas Hobbes suggests numerous things about the state of nature and the nature of man under no governing authority. In the state of nature everything is fair game. Everyone has the right to everything present in the world and is not violating any laws when they seek these things. For example, one can steal someone else’s house if they are capable of doing so without violating any laws as there are none in the state of nature. “It is consequent also to the same condition, that there be no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine distinct…” (Leviathan. Chapter 14.) In the state of nature everyone has the right to self defense; this is the right of self preservation which is the only right present under no governing authority. Everyone is also always in competition for what goods are available in the state of nature. Because of scarcity people constantly battle with one another and this becomes the “war of all against all.” The only motive is that of the individualistic nature and in that people are only driven by their desires. This constant battle of self interest makes life in the state of nature “nasty, brutish, and short.” There are universal desires that govern over human nature. “So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.” (Leviathan. Chapter 13) Firstly all humans have a fear of violent death. Hobbes claims that we are all essentially equal despite differences in
Bibliography: Hobbes, Thomas. "Leviathan." Classics of Political and Moral Philosophy. Oxford UP. Locke, John. "Second Treatise of Government." Classics of Political and Moral Philosophy. Oxford UP.