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.”
Hobbes’s opinions about politics and government were far different from fellow English philosopher John Locke’s in his document Second Treatise of Government published in 1689. Locke existed during a much later period in Europe, when the Wars of Religion was over and England had established the Glorious Revolution Agreement between Dutch nobility, William and Mary, and Parliament. Due to the different time periods in which Hobbes and Locke lived, their experiences had a major effect on their opinions about government. Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government had different opinions regarding a man’s state of nature and social contract.
Do you believe all humans have the best intentions for others? Many people believe that we come into this world with only good inside of us, while others believe we all arrive good but our mindset is turned evil and self-obsessed throughout time as we grow older. In the 17th century there were many arguments on whether citizens should govern themselves or have a ruler to keep the citizens in control. Everyone has a clean slate at the start but the choices one makes can mold you into who you become later on. In the 17th century there were two philosophers, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, who both thought differently about human nature and the way some people are when it comes to money and power.
Achieving Change In Obama’s Inauguration even he stated that “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. ”(Obama)
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.
Introduction Speaking on human nature, London-born philosopher Thomas Hobbes commented that, “…the natural state of man’s life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. All mankind [is in] a perpetual and restless desire for power that stops only in death.” The Leviathan (1651) pt1 ch.12. Governments we created so as to protect people from their own selfishness and evil. Recorded history has reveals that man has exceeded his tyrannical rule of totalitarian dictatorship whenever he gets half-a-chance.
Jean-Jacque Rousseau - Comparisons with the above two philosophers and opinions on the State and Law. Jean Jacques Rousseau is the third philosopher I wish to discuss. He was a French-Geneva philosopher who is widely believed to have influenced the enlightenment in France and Europe. During the French revolution Rousseau was one of the most respected and popular political theorists. Rousseau believed that men in the state of nature were the most natural and free they could be before they were corrupted by the unnatural grips of civilization.
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.
Thomas Hobbes has been famous for his philosophies on political and social order. In many of his scholastic works, he maintains the position that in the presence of a higher authority the duty of the rest of mankind is to simply obey. The discourse on this essay will focus on his views expressed in his book The Leviathan. In this book Hobbes’ views are fundamentally entrenched in his description that in a society with no higher authority life would be nasty, short and brutish (?) .This essay will engage in discussion by first laying out the conceptual arguments of anarchy and the human state of nature.
This paper will closely examine the perceptions of the two exceedingly crucial political philosophers in history, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes in their epochs on the different aspects in history or the themes of political theory, authority, and liberty, along with an explanation of their conception of order, disorder and chaos. Throughout history, there have always been many well-known politicians, philosophers, historians, etc. From their performances in life, we can perceive and comprehend their perspectives and concepts of their work and practices. Today, this helps us to comprehend how life was before and what the themes meant at that time. Going back to consider the political theory, authority, and liberty in history, we can take a look at Machiavelli and Hobbes’ perspectives and different features of documents as primary sources, so that we can comprehend how these two great philosophers viewed the themes differently.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, two titans of the Enlightenment, work within similar intellectual frameworks in their seminal writings. Hobbes, in Leviathan, postulates a “state of nature” before society developed, using it as a tool to analyze the emergence of governing institutions. Rousseau borrows this conceit in Discourse on Inequality, tracing the development of man from a primitive state to modern society. Hobbes contends that man is equal in conflict during the state of nature and then remains equal under government due to the ruler’s monopoly on authority. Rousseau, meanwhile, believes that man is equal in harmony in the state of nature and then unequal in developed society.
Locke’s vision of continual consent to governmental rule is much more appealing than Hobbes’s tyrant. Even though his views on human nature seem too good to be true, Locke’s philosophy is alluringly practical. If you do not agree with your government, simply leave and find another government you do agree with. Additionally, Locke’s plan protects the citizens by giving them leave to make their own decisions. Hobbes’s view is doubly flawed: his opinion on human nature forces his government to fail morally.
THOMAS HOBBES AND THE SOVEREIGN’S POWER In this essay, focusing on Thomas Hobbes’s book ‘’Leviathan’’, mainly on the chapters 13 and 14, I’m going to analyse the fact that Hobbes gives the sovereign an absolute power authorizing it to provide the society with security essential to their liberty. Thomas Hobbes is certainly one of the most controversial and frequently contested political philosophers of modern times; he left a significant mark on modern understanding of human nature, political theories and the issues of systems of governance. His work has been at the centre of many discussions among political philosophers; I will refer to some of the twentieth century political theorists and their critiques to confront Hobbes view of the absolute
Thomas Hobbes proposed that the ideal government should be an absolute monarchy as a direct result of experiencing the English Civil War, in which there was internal conflict between the parliamentarians and the royalists. Hobbes made this claim under the assumption that an absolute monarchy would produce consistent policies, reduce conflicts and lower the risk of civil wars due to the singular nature of this ruling system. On another hand, John Locke counters this proposal with the view that absolute monarchies are not legitimate as they are inconsistent with the state of nature. These two diametrically opposed views stem from Hobbes’ and Locke’s different understandings of human nature, namely with regard to power relationships, punishment, and equality in the state of nature. Hobbes’ belief that human beings are selfish and appetitive is antithetical with Locke’s contention that human beings are intrinsically moral even in the state of nature, which results in Locke’s strong disagreement with Hobbes’ proposed absolute monarchy.
Political science and political philosophy are two unique philosophies of different eras that review and study the political behaviors and values. Political philosophy is regarded as an ancient concept which followed back to Socrates who encouraged partisanship in politics. Moving to the political science, it is a modern study of political behavior that supports the non-partisanship. Political scientists are not interested in political argues like political philosophers, because they want to deal with facts as they believe. But such debates will not have solutions.
