CQ: Whose is a more effective method of the social contract – Locke or Hobbes?
In the early eighteenth century, two English philosophers named Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were inspired by the brutal English Civil war to write about the natural characteristics of humans. In his book, Leviathan, Hobbes expresses his opinion that humans were naturally egotistical, vicious, and greedy towards others, as there would be no question of morality or punishment for their actions. 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,”
…show more content…
As such, he believed in the power of an absolute monarchy to keep the citizens in order. On the other hand, Locke expressed in his book, Two Treatises of Government, that social contracts were created to protect the natural rights of everybody. Because of this, he opposed the idea of an absolute monarchy, and was in favor of a government that gave equal rights to all citizens. Later, Locke’s ideas of a government for the people lead to modern day democracy. Given the difference between the two, John Locke’s method of the social contract is more effective than Thomas Hobbes's method. Effective meaning that the government grants more freedoms to its people while still upholding their natural rights of life, liberty, and property. This is proven by the facts that freedom of speech in countries governed by Locke-esque governments is better than in countries governed by Hobbes-esque governments, because the quality of life (through the Human Development Index) in countries governed by Locke-esque governments is better than in countries governed by Hobbes-esque governments, and because there are more opportunities in countries governed