Hobbes believed that people do not have the the right to alter a government. Locke believed that people do have the right to alter a government.
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
Thomas Hobbes He would like to study different types of governments. He thought that a monarchy government was better than democracy because he believed that they were naturally wicked and could not be trusted to govern. He believed that it was better to have a leader like a king that would knew how to be a leader and command a country. He would say that government were for the selfish people who were trying to hide their bad decisions.
Thomas Hobbes and John locke were both famous philosophers during the enlightenment period. They were social contract theorists and natural law theorists, they both impacted the modern government, modern science, and the world in general tremendously. However that is where the resemblance ends. If one looks more deeply, they will see that these two philosophers actually had very contrasting opinions. Hobbes was more pessimistic about the world whereas Locke had a more optimistic outlook on his surrounding environment.
Hobbes vs Locke When a unlawful crime happens we are shocked and paralyzed by fear and despair. Well ,with these crimes comes governmental responsibility this is why. Without a strictly ruled government violence, no productivity, and consequently no knowledge of the Earth would result. To begin, with “Without a common power to keep them in awe, it will result in a state of war” as Thomas Hobbes states. Strict power is important, absences of this allows us to forget that we are all equal and no one is higher than the other.
The Enlightenment: Hobbes vs. Locke Two famous philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, have contributed to modern political science by expressing their views on human nature and the general laws that man had to follow. Both of their views differed in terms of how man should live his life. These views will be shown by comparing both philosophers’ opinions on the nature of man, and the various laws that constituted. Man was naturally evil, selfish, and living in a state of war, according to Hobbes. He believed that “humans were created “bad” by their creator”, and were “condemned to live in a world where bad things happen” (The Enlightenment, 1650-1789, p. 6).
However, Locke believed that humans had a natural sense of morality, and also that people had the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Hobbes and Locke then used their opinions on basic human nature to define why people form a government, which they describe as a “social contract,”
Hobbes believes in an unsafe, truculent environment that individuals cannot wait to escape due to their constant feelings of doubt and being unsafe. Contrary, Locke believes that humans have a genuine obligation to themselves as well as their society to be honest, equal and tolerant of one
The two documents by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both talk about human’s natural rights and why. The documents both lead ideas to believing that these basic laws govern human interaction in society. The documents would most likely be successful to a community if the document gives rights to each human,in every category from race to gender. The two mastermind thinkers of science both realized that humans already had rights even when most people during their time period was often worked as slaves and peasants. One simple right included life,because people naturally breathe air.
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.
In Hobbes view, as stated in Leviathan, men are all equal but “if any two men desire the same thing, which neverthelesse they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their End…”.[1] which reference how mankind’s desires can cause war which is natural. On the other hand, although Locke believes that all men are created equally such as Hobbes does, he states that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… we are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others: this was the cause of men's uniting themselves at first in politic societies. ”[2], which unlike Hobbes views where men are inherently evil and against one another, Locke believes mankind is one of unity, peace, and
Thomas Hobbes was enlightenment philosopher who lived from 1585 to 1679. In his first book, “Leviathan” he explained that all people were too selfish to be able to govern themselves and an absolute monarchy would be needed. He thought that absolute monarch was needed in order to keep everyone in check. John Locke was also an enlightenment philosopher but who had completely opposite views from Thomas Hobbes. He believed that all people were born with natural rights.
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.
The secondary literature on Hobbes's moral and political philosophy (not to speak of his entire body of work) is vast, appearing across many disciplines and in many languages. There are two major aspects to Hobbes's picture of human nature. As we have seen, and will explore below, what motivates human beings to act is extremely important to Hobbes. The other aspect concerns human powers of judgment and reasoning, about which Hobbes tends to be extremely skeptical. Like many philosophers before him, Hobbes wants to present a more solid and certain account of human morality than is contained in everyday beliefs.
