Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Hobbes vs locke compare and contrast
THEORIES OF absolutism
Hobbes vs locke compare and contrast
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Hobbes vs locke compare and contrast
THEORIES OF absolutism
Hobbes vs locke compare and contrast
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Hobbes vs locke compare and contrast
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were early English philosophers who each had very different views on the roles of the government and the people being governed. Their interpretations of human nature each had a lasting and vast impact on modern political science. Locke believed that men had the right to revolt against oppressive government. “‘Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”
Hobbes and Locke had opposing views and interpretations of men and their state of nature. Hobbes was around during the time that an absolute monarchy was the acceptable type of government for society. This was most acceptable to Hobbes because he believed that if society would leave man in his own state of nature he would be brutish. Also he believed that a government with
There is no government, no authority whatsoever. Every being is born equal and share the right to do anything for their survival. His political theory was based off his idea that all humans are naturally evil and selfish. Hobbes said that this equality leads to war. “...a war of every man against every man.”
Hobbes believed that natural state of humans was violent and therefore needed order and control to ensure a just and equal society (Robinson 2016, 4). However Hobbes believed that a sovereign could maintain power without deceit and manipulation. Hobbes believed in the social contract which is when people could have a moral understanding about right and wrong to avoid the chaotic violent human nature. Hobbes believed in the idea of utilitarianism which would “maximize the most good and minimize the pain” (Robinson 201, 4). This would ensure that the sovereign was doing things for the right reasons and not to better himself but to better society as a
Hobbes, he defends a philosophical absolutism. The idea that absolute power is not good, because it is supported by God, it is better because it best. Leviathan - a sea monster that is the ruler. Hobbes believes that it is important to have the line to keep us from destroying each other. The government was the state of nature, which means a war of all against all.
To begin, Locke and Hobbes were two outstanding thinkers who argued in different ways, Hobbes believed in the legitimacy of absolute monarch and Locke believed in a government based on the will of the people being governed. They both represented a growing trend in European society in the 17th and 18th centuries to use reason as the final judgment of things, including the conduct of kings. They contributed to modern political science, and they both had similar views on where power lies in a society. Hobbes has influenced to some degree what can be done to change a government by the people, the contributions Hobbes did led to the foundation of what today is the conservative party. On the other hand, Locke was very influential in shaping modern politics, our current view of human nature, the nature of individual rights, the popular constitutions that exist today and the building blocks of the liberal party.
John Locke, a political thinker of the 1650s, once stated that “All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” This statement speaks volumes, as it adequately describes the views of John Locke. Another political thinker, Thomas Hobbes, had a significantly different viewpoint on how the government should be run. After comparing the drastically different views between these men, it is clear that only one of their ideas could best form a society and base a government on: John Locke. Though both prove good points, Hobbes’ views would only work in a near perfect world.
It is easy to notice that Locke significantly departs from the theory of Hobbes. John Locke to the liberal monarchy. But Hobbes emphasized the absolute power of the state over society and people, and was an authoritarian monarchy. Locke emphasizes something else: people give the state only part of his natural liberty. The Constitution is to limit the power of law, - says Locke.
Thomas Hobbes was a logician, researcher, and a history specialist. He is best known for his political theory, particularly in his breathtaking gem, the Leviathan. He trusted that the main genuine type of government was supreme government. He saw government fundamentally to ensure aggregate security. He contended the most powerfully in his point of interest, Leviathan.
One his theories, stated in his book called Leviathan said that people are not able rule themselves because of how selfish mankind is and they need to be ruled by an iron fist. His political theory was that was also stated in Leviathan was that we should respect government authority under all circumstances to avoid violence. Hobbes was scared of the outcome of the social contract which meant people could get rid of the government if they were unhappy with what they were getting. In order to make well with the social contract he states in Leviathan that people should be completely obedient to the government. His reasoning was that if there was no government, there would be chaos.
When comparing the two different accounts of English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke we must take into consideration a number of things such as the age in which they lived and the time in which they produced their philosophical writings. We will however find out that these two philosophers actually have a couple of things in which agree on even though most of their opinions clash. On one side we have Thomas Hobbes who lived in the time of the English Civil War (1642-1651) who provides a negative framework for his philosophical opinions in his masterpiece Leviathan and who advocates for philosophical absolutism . On the other side we have John Locke, living during the glorious revolution (1688-1689) he presents a positive attitude in his book The Second Treatise of Government and advocates for philosophical and biblical constitutionalism. It is important that we know that the state of nature describes a pre- political society prior to the social contract.
Thomas Hobbes was a philosopher. Who asked questions on why humans could thrive in harmony while avoiding the perils and fears if societal conflict. While John Locke philosophy lies at the foundation of modern philosophical empiricism and political liberalism. They both are great philosophers, but their time period and backgrounds are different from each other. Their essential qualities is how you may define a person, can Thomas Hobbes and John Locke qualities be intertwined with each other.
Hobbes’ philosophy can be found within the novel in many points of the story. He believed that the best kind of government was one in which society is organized under one authority, “Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no justice.” In this society all individuals give up some rights for the sake of protection. There is no doctrine of separation of powers in Hobbes’ discussion. Although Hobbes philosophy about human nature is logical and compatible with human rationale, his political theories involving leadership; though sensible in part are illogical.
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have become known as three of the most prominent political theorists in the world today. Their philosophies and innovative thinking is known worldwide and it has influenced the creation of numerous new governments. All three thinkers agree on the idea of a social contract but their opinions differ on how the social contract is established and implemented within each society. These philosophers state, that in order for the social contract to be successful people need to give up certain freedoms in order to secure fundamental protections from the state, henceforth the state then has certain responsibilities to their citizens. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all believe that before men were governed we all lived in a state of nature.
Thomas Hobbes proposed that the ideal government should be an absolute monarchy as a direct result of experiencing the English Civil War, in which there was internal conflict between the parliamentarians and the royalists. Hobbes made this claim under the assumption that an absolute monarchy would produce consistent policies, reduce conflicts and lower the risk of civil wars due to the singular nature of this ruling system. On another hand, John Locke counters this proposal with the view that absolute monarchies are not legitimate as they are inconsistent with the state of nature. These two diametrically opposed views stem from Hobbes’ and Locke’s different understandings of human nature, namely with regard to power relationships, punishment, and equality in the state of nature. Hobbes’ belief that human beings are selfish and appetitive is antithetical with Locke’s contention that human beings are intrinsically moral even in the state of nature, which results in Locke’s strong disagreement with Hobbes’ proposed absolute monarchy.