DeAndre’ Royster Simple,and Exclusive The natural state of mankind before forming a government. Hobbes and Locke both believed in a state of nature. They also both believed in a social contract. Hobbes wanted a government to protect people from each other.
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.”
During the 16th and 17th century, Europe went through political disputes regarding government which created uproar and conflict. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes published his document Leviathan during the War of Religion in 1651. The War of Religion was a time period in which Europe was trying to establish its religion between Catholic and Protestant (Huguenot). The Holy Roman Empire in particular had tension about religious beliefs due to the Peace of Augsburg which entailed each ruler to establish a religion for their state, also known as a confession. The Peace of Augsburg also entailed that when a new ruler came into power, they could keep or change the confession of that state and its practices.
Hobbes believed that “it is not possible for people to have both freedom and peace, since the state of freedom is a state of unlimited greed and war.” (Document C). i believe that hobbes is right about how there are many selfish people and if it came down to you or them, who would you choose? It is most likely that one chooses to save themselves because at a certain time it comes down to survival. Hobbes thought that we should have a ruler such as a king or queen because “democracy- allowing citizens to vote for government leaders- would never work.
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.
Through the background of Rousseau's own life, the growth of Victor's character, and the development of the Creature, are weaved into Shelley's work. Their beliefs were that the remainder of their education must be obtained through interactions with other people, the natural world, and personal experiences and, “It depends on two key assumptions, 1. That human beings as individuals are in some sense prior to any established social order, so that their obedience to the state has to be justified and 2. That the condition of human beings outside the socially constructed state, is ultimately unsatisfactory, thus providing humans a reason to escape such a condition” (Foltz 129).
This is a fatal event in Rousseau’s mind as unlike ‘the savage’ who ‘lives in himself’, an individual in society ‘is always outside himself and knows how to live only in the opinion of others’. Very unlike the Hobbesian war-like state of nature where ‘vainglory’ cause people to act like barbarous beasts, Rousseau argues that egocentrism derives solely from social interaction believing that his predecessors were projecting ideas of modern corruption onto the state of nature. Therefore, Rousseau’s analysis of moral psychology reveals how humans have become duplicitous and false through socialisation as the foundations of competition and bettering people are laid and consequently, a ‘desire for inequality’ governs the
The debate was clearly won by Thomas Hobbes team, although they had an easier topic and material to talk about. The theory of human nature being driven by instinct and the human species is naturally greedy, evil, and selfish was backed up with years of research and facts. Although Thomas Hobbes team had many great points, John Locke team (the team I was in) also had great points and won the political side of the needed kind of ruling. Main key points that caught my attention and were significant include: 1) without no ruler then chaos will occur 2) human nature is the need and desire of dominance 3) it’s human nature of doing whatever possible to survive 4) human nature is driven by instinct to survive and fulfill the needs a person has and
Rousseau’s hypothesis was similar to Locke’s in that man was naturally good and would be content in the state of nature. Rousseau was in favour of individual freedom and independence. In contrast to Hobbes he believed that human life in the state of nature would not be clouded by selfishness and that men would not have this unearthly desire to acquire more possessions, for which he would have no need or desire. Rousseau’s theory unlike Locke’s theory states that men would be independent and not need to rely on each other. He states “man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains".
The use of knowledge and physical strength are two attributes that Hobbes identifies, and that he argues provides man with success on an individual level within the state of nature. The state of nature is designed in the context that all men are
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.
Hobbes viewed state of nature as a state of war. According to Hobbes, in a state of nature, there is no right to property because no one affords another that right. He stated that property and possessions would inevitably cause men to become enemies. Hobbes believes that people have equal physical and mental ability to harm, and that people will do so for three reasons - competition, difference, and glory. " so that in the state of nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel, first, competition; secondly, difference; thirdly, glory" (Hobbes 2008, p.85).
“when I consider him, in a word, as he must have left the hands of nature, I see an animal less strong than some, less agile than others…” (Rousseau 40) Contrary to those described by Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau’s state of nature does not involve complex rational ideas, but rather simple instincts such as sympathy and self-preservation. The absence of things like violence and property from Rousseau’s state of nature implies that these problems are unnatural and are the product of society. Rousseau continues to state
Thus, both philosophers consider equality the natural human orientation, but establish equality on radically different terms: Hobbes’s is chaotic and Rousseau’s harmonious. These assumptions inform their considerations of inequality (or lack thereof) within a legitimate
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.
