John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were philosophers with opposing views of mankind, which greatly influenced their ideals and actions. Thomas Hobbes, who witnessed the English civil war, had a negative viewpoint on the nature of human beings. He saw citizens as selfish and wicked and that the only right form of government would be an absolute monarchy. Hobbes coined the term “social contract,” which meant the people are born with rights in which they exchange for protection under an absolute ruler. Hobbes’ ideal form of government was a “monarchy, [because] his main concern was to argue that effective government—whatever its form—must have absolute authority. Its powers must be neither divided nor limited” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). …show more content…
In contrast to Hobbes, John Locke was a philosopher who believed in “life, liberty, health and property...these are natural rights” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). His ideal form of government was a democracy, with consent of the governed. He believed that humans were inherently good, could be trusted to learn from their mistakes, make good choices, and govern themselves. The government’s main purpose would be to protect the people’s inalienable rights. The consent of the governed gives rights for the people to rise up against an ineffective government, and it is needed to “form a political community…[consent] makes political communities stable…[and is] determined by majority rule” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). I agree with John Locke and his philosophy because he was for the people, and his ideals are practiced in Western democracy today. Hobbes’ view of human nature is negative and is based upon his experience with war. His beliefs violate natural rights that people should have. Because Hobbes experienced a time of war, his bias against the morality of humans is