More handpicked essays just for you.
How does thomas hobbes influence modern politics
How does thomas hobbes influence modern politics
Critiques of thomas hobbes political philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.”
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.
Thomas Hobbes He would like to study different types of governments. He thought that a monarchy government was better than democracy because he believed that they were naturally wicked and could not be trusted to govern. He believed that it was better to have a leader like a king that would knew how to be a leader and command a country. He would say that government were for the selfish people who were trying to hide their bad decisions.
Page 2 of 2 Graded AssignmentResearch Paper Final Draft(200 points)Type your draft here. Elora CopleyMs. FrischEnglish 113/10/18Foreign influence on The Declaration of IndependenceThe ideas surrounding government in our Declaration of Independence had multiple outside influences stretching from english and french philosophers to historical documents. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes’s ideas, laid out the basis as to why we need a declaration of independence, and why we need to have a government set in place. Hobbes said in his book LETHIAN, that people were incapable of ruling themselves primarily because, “humans are naturally self-centered and quarrelsome and need the iron fist of a strong leader.”
If Hobbes and Locke would see both of their perspectives on governing in the 21st century wouldn't they both see that both of their perspective make sense. According to the way their psychologically viewing government at the era. Since Thomas Hobbs wrote the Leviathan on the background of the English Civil war. Of course anyone would view this and say the country is under cause and we need someone like Oliver Cromwell who came in and became powerful enough to say no one will have the audacity to challenge. Since Hobbs believed that without the absence of an invincible absolute ruler,we would kill each other.
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.
It differs from person to person and it’s based on what they see is morally right or wrong. We as a society could and do base almost all our morals on the greatest good for the greater amount of people, otherwise known as majority rules. However, I find there are flaws in that system of thinking. To say that the greater amount of people get what they want due to the fact that the amount of people in one group surpasses the amount in another, seems illogical.
There were many philosophers in the 17th and 18th century that influenced and inspired the founders of our country. For instance, John Locke believed that life, liberty, and property should be our natural rights as humans and if the government could not secure these rights then the people could get rid of them. That idea impacted Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. This was the perfect time to develop different theories and contradictions because this was right around the time of the printing press and protestant reformation where people started to question the catholic church. Other philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau impacted founders like George Washington and James Madison who have positively affected this country in many different ways.
Hobbes’ depiction of the role of the sovereign presented a subtle but distinct understanding in the formation
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 developed the ‘social contract theory’, which is the idea that civilians give up some of their freedom and liberty for protection from the leader. This concept, which was used during Hobbes’s time, is still a part of the government today. Hobbes brings down this concept in his world famous book, Leviathan. A picture of a ‘giant’ monarch holding onto a tiny world is used to describe his version of the social contract. The drawing depicts the trade of freedom for safety.
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have become known as three of the most prominent political theorists in the world today. Their philosophies and innovative thinking is known worldwide and it has influenced the creation of numerous new governments. All three thinkers agree on the idea of a social contract but their opinions differ on how the social contract is established and implemented within each society. These philosophers state, that in order for the social contract to be successful people need to give up certain freedoms in order to secure fundamental protections from the state, henceforth the state then has certain responsibilities to their citizens. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all believe that before men were governed we all lived in a state of nature.
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 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.
