Locke Vs Hobbes Social Contract

1129 Words5 Pages

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two theorists known for their views regarding the social contract. Both theorists study the origins of government and the level of authority given to the state over individuals, thoroughly constructing their arguments through the social contract. A philosophical approach was used in both Hobbes’s and Locke’s arguments, however supporting different authorities. Thomas Hobbes advocates for absolutism whilst John Locke advocates for a constitutional government. Through the close examination of the state of nature, the relationships between subject and sovereign and views regarding the social contract, one can observe a more sensible basis for constructing a successful political society.
The definition of the state …show more content…

evil is very subjective to the individual and cannot directly guide someone to the correct path. Locke also discusses two essential laws of nature: the obligation of preserving yourself as well as the preservation of the rest of mankind as a result of human reasoning. He argues this after stating, “man has not Liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any Creature in his Possession.” (2) This allows for man to be wary about harming another individual’s life, liberty or possessions. These two accounts of the state of nature are very significant because they allow for the understanding of two different approaches to one term. 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 …show more content…

For instance, Hobbes states that “he hath the use of so much Power and Strength 1881 conferred on him” (227) This refers to the sovereign power who the individuals, as a nation, unify their wills allowing for all the power to be given upon one man. The sovereign has many responsibilities towards his subjects ranging from the protection of his people, the education of individuals regarding property and lastly, the creation and application of the law in an equal manner. (229) Even though the sovereign is considered very essential for the wellbeing of his subjects, Hobbes does not allow his subjects any rights to defend themselves against the sovereign, even if he was careless and inconsiderate, creating a sovereign power that is above the law. In Locke’s case, he does not believe in one sovereign power. Instead, he believes that all humans are born both free and equal, in which individuals in the society are governed by natural law. (330) The ‘sovereign power’ in John Locke’s findings relates to the government, as it subsists to help support and keep the people safe. However, if an individual is seeking the protection of their property, they must pursue an executive power to help keep that property safe. (326) This relationship between the subject and the sovereign can be considered very significant because it overshadows the way in which political societies work