Thomas Hobbes Views On Human Nature

392 Words2 Pages

In Thomas Hobbes’s words, the life of man is, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” He does not hold a high opinion of man’s ability to enjoy life or at least go through it with endurance and perseverance. On the other hand, John Locke had more confidence in human nature. He believed that morality could be approached rather like numbers: obviously and easily. Everyone would know what good meant, just as everyone would know what five or ten meant. The balance of pleasure, or good, should offset the weight of pain, or bad. Even though humans may not be perfectly moral all the time, they could still know the natural moral laws and live by them. Hobbes disagreed. He spoke of the "war of all against all" rather a happy, peaceful society. Hobbes 's view on government was also different than Locke …show more content…

By continuing to act as citizens of a city or country and taking advantage of the benefits provided, people prove their consent to the government. They may complain, but they stay. Hobbes’s model, however, would force the people to submit to the ruler, even if he made choices they disagreed with. Because he was the law, Hobbes’s sovereign could do no wrong. I do not believe that one person should be able to rule without question. If Hobbes believes that human nature is so evil, why does he allow one evil person to reign unchecked? 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. Locke’s idea of government is far better than Hobbes’s because he prevents the ruler from taking advantage of the