Hobbes Vs John Locke Essay

Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and John Rawls to one of America’s Founding Fathers— Thomas Jefferson have discussed the origins of the state and nature of social justice that was radically different from current political theories of the time. They all agreed upon several core beliefs. They agreed that all members of society are inherently equal, and willing to enter into a “social contract” with each other to obtain a higher quality of life. They also believed that laws and justice would exist if social contract is formed. Lastly, they all agreed that justice would be viewed by pursing the interest of the public and would be enforced by the ruling members of the community. Most importantly, Hobbes, Locke, and Rawls all agreed that the government should be based on a social contract. According to the text’s author, Dr. John Chaffee, a social contract is an agreement made between the people and their ruler or amongst the people in a community (Chaffee, 10.3). According to Hobbes, humans begin in the “state of nature,” that is unconstrained by laws or social agreements. He suggests that a society must have a social contract to live in peace and to coexist with one another. To Hobbes, “justice” and “injustice” would only exist when laws are created. Hobbes believes that

He proclaimed that social contract would protect an individuals’s natural rights. Locke believed that people are bound by the “law of nature,” and would reflect God’s divine will, even without the existence of laws and a justice system. He says that social contract would protect an individual’s natural rights of life, liberty, health, and property. Locke believed that people are entitled to do whatever they want with their bodies and to receive a share of what their labor produces (Chaffee,