Upon learning about Locke and Hobbs’ social contract theory, I learned of many differences they both had about the listed topic. I personally had a slightly tough time getting the message completely that both were trying to portray, but I soon learned that both had two separate theories about life and began to understand the meanings behind both people and the way we live our lives today. As I learned, Locke explains that he believes a person in a world should be controlling of themselves and their actions. A person should live in a world of personal rights of person and property. Locke believed that a person should not have the upmost control and should be protected by a higher source, which would be a government. I believe Locke mentioned …show more content…
Hobbes thought of people as being self centered people who are looking for the best way for them selves. Hobbes also explained that “people live in a state of war, not the violent kind but always battle with others for personal benefit.” In comparison, Locke believed that people are reasonable. The people are thought of as being reasonable, but not good in Locke’s logic. In the state of nature, Hobbes explained that people are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short of life”. I personally believe this was describing the way people’s attitudes toward each other and the lives they lived, which describes some places and people in today’s world. In comparison, Locke explains, “It is not equal to a state of war”, “People are free to do whatever they want, but are bound by law of nature”. In reference to the purpose of the government the two men Hobbes and Locke disagreed again. Hobbes thought that the use of a one single government was wrong and wanted a one personal ruler of all, which would be comparable to a king. In comparison Locke thought a government would be best suited for the projected outcome of protection of personal property and