What Was The Difference Between Locke And Hobbes
Governments originated from the desire of people to be protected, whether it be from external or internal conflicts. With the formation of governments, a hierarchy formed between the common people and government workers. As Lock and Hobbes put it, a “social contract” was established between the two. By Locke and Hobbes’ standards, a social contract is the agreement between individuals and governments, in which both agree to make compromises to avoid the consequences of living in the state of nature, or life without the influence of government regulations. Although both philosophers believed in social contracts, Locke and Hobbes formulated their own versions of why individuals agree to form organized governments.
Hobbes, who believed that people …show more content…
He believed that people are by nature good and can collaborate if necessary (Donald). Problems only arise when dealing with property. In his book, Second Treatise of Government, Locke states, “The only way whereby anyone divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it” (Locke). In other words, people agree to give up their freedoms and place trust in a government, and in exchange they gain many assurances from their government. In particular, they are assured protection of their property, so they are not constantly worried about it being stolen. Locke also believed that humans are born with inalienable, or natural, rights. Among those rights are life, liberty, and property (Thomas Hobbes and John Locke). He believed that in the State of Nature, those rights would not be protected, so another reason we set up governments is to protect those rights. However, Locke did not believe that we relinquish all our rights to the government. If the government was abusive and failed to do its duties, the people had the right to revolt
Hobbes, who believed that people …show more content…
He believed that people are by nature good and can collaborate if necessary (Donald). Problems only arise when dealing with property. In his book, Second Treatise of Government, Locke states, “The only way whereby anyone divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it” (Locke). In other words, people agree to give up their freedoms and place trust in a government, and in exchange they gain many assurances from their government. In particular, they are assured protection of their property, so they are not constantly worried about it being stolen. Locke also believed that humans are born with inalienable, or natural, rights. Among those rights are life, liberty, and property (Thomas Hobbes and John Locke). He believed that in the State of Nature, those rights would not be protected, so another reason we set up governments is to protect those rights. However, Locke did not believe that we relinquish all our rights to the government. If the government was abusive and failed to do its duties, the people had the right to revolt