Locke wanted a government to protect our natural rights. Hobbes believed that power resided to the Monarch. Locke believed that power resided to the people. Hobbes believed that a government’s power cannot be limited. Locke believed that a government’s power can be limited.
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.”
Locke stated, “And this puts men out of a state of nature into that of a commonwealth, by setting up a judge on earth, with
Thomas Hobbes wrote a famous book, The Leviathan, that explained how he thought humans were selfish and needed the government to keep order. He supported an absolute monarchy that could not be overthrown. Baron de Montesquieu said, “ Again, there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the Legislative and Executive powers,” (Doc. 4). This displays how he wanted Separation of Powers, government division to keep one individual from rising to power.
John Locke believed in a democracy and expressed that humans have the ability to govern themselves. However, Hobbes believed that humans are selfish and need a single leader(king) that should govern all affairs. Post French Revolution people lived under Hobbes theory, but wanted to become a democracy.
Thomas Hobbes quote is a valid statement in justifying absolutism because he states the problems that occurs when there isn’t a sole ruler, therefore absolutism is needed to keep order. Seventeenth century England is a prime example of the problems that can occur when there isn’t an absolute ruler with full control of his nation.
As the seventeenth century began, there were many changes yet to come for the world that would shape what it is today. Two political thinkers helped make these changes in the aspect of political thought. Those two thinkers went by the names of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both of these two men were incredibly smart and knew what they believed. Both of them believed in a centralized government that was chosen by the people so that the people were able to have power also.
Some people like Thomas Hobbes believed that they needed an absolute monarchy or else there would be chaos, every man vs. every man in a fight over selfishness. Hobbes believed that there needed to be a monarch to scare the people for obedience and order. Another who believed this was Catherine the Great, she stated “Not to deprive people of their natural liberty; but to correct their actions, in order to attain the supreme good” (Doc 2). Then there were people like John Locke who believed that the people can govern themselves and the only laws that were needed were laws to protect a man's natural rights; life, liberty and property. Locke believed that natural rights were given to you by god and no one could break or take them away.
Locke opposed the idea of absolutism, believing that all men are equal and should have the freedom to control their actions and properties, however they choose to do so, as long as it’s within the boundary of the law of nature. Despite Locke’s beliefs of this right that people have, he also reasoned that it’s still important to have some sort of regulation for the purpose of maintaining peace and carrying out laws fairly. Therefore, to balance out these two ideas of equal rights and having a fair government, he proposed that people shouldn’t give the government all of
Hobbes believed that natural state of humans was violent and therefore needed order and control to ensure a just and equal society (Robinson 2016, 4). However Hobbes believed that a sovereign could maintain power without deceit and manipulation. Hobbes believed in the social contract which is when people could have a moral understanding about right and wrong to avoid the chaotic violent human nature. Hobbes believed in the idea of utilitarianism which would “maximize the most good and minimize the pain” (Robinson 201, 4). This would ensure that the sovereign was doing things for the right reasons and not to better himself but to better society as a
According to Hobbes, a sovereign, whether the sovereign was placed into power by violence or force, is the only way to secure law and order. For him, if a citizen obeys the sovereign for fear of punishment or in the fear of the state of nature, it is the choice of the citizen. According to Hobbes, this is not tyranny; it is his idea of a society that is successful, one that does not have room for democracy. As a realist, Hobbes has a fierce distrust of democracy and viewed all of mankind in a restless desire for power. If the people are given power, law and order would crumble in Hobbes’ eyes.
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 good is not knowledge but it is knowledgeable. It is the cause of all good because it is independent. Light and sight are said to be like the sun, but not actually being the sun, and science and truth are said to be like the Good, but not actually being the Good. Therefore, by this discussion, the Good is beyond ALL being and is the cause of most of existence. The “Divided Line” is a bit more complex than the sun analogy because there are so many more parts that culminate to form this topic.
He states, “Men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free, equal and independent... (Locke 330). Locke believes that each individual is equal and independent, therefore, we should all make choices for the common good in the government. Absolutism on the other hand, believes individuals are born as part of a societal body with a function to serve. For an example, kings are born to be kings that can rule without having to sharing their power.
Firstly, an absolute monarchy as proposed by Hobbes would require that people relinquish their own rights and to submit to one absolute power, which Locke feels is counterintuitive his understand of humans in the state of nature. A distinctive feature of Locke’s state of nature is perfect freedom for people to carry out their own wills without hindrance. Hence, Locke’s main critique of Hobbes’ absolutism is that people living under a Hobbesian
