Locke Vs Hobbes Social Contract

Locke believed that it is people’s inherent right to govern themselves. He “championed the social contract and govern­ment by consent”. (Steven) He even went so far to say that people did not need to be governed. All that government is is a framework by which people protect their natural rights, but it only needs to exist in practice.

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which of that law, teaches all of mankind, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” this quote show that locke wanted all people to trust each other and to treat each other how they would want to be treated, with respect and trust that you have the best intentions for others not just yourself and to prove that you are not selfish. “Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. And thus considering the plenty of natural provision there was a long time in the world, and the few spenders… there could be then little room for quarrels or contentions about property so established.” Locke believed that if all men were to treat each other and all of their property equally there would be no arguments or fights over anything because everyone has equal things and equal opportunities in life.

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 and locke were two philosophers who two different ideas on the world and human behavior as a whole. Hobbes mainly believed that without any form of government people will always be trying to fight for power. On the other hand, Locke believed everyone is born peaceful but can be corrupted by society. Hobbes and Locke both had very different views on different human nature, the purpose of government, and both had a big influence on many different countries.

Locke believed that people were born with natural rights that included the right to life, liberty, and property. Locke argued that people formed governments to protect their natural rights, so the best kind of government was one with limited power and was accepted by all citizens. Locke said that a government has an obligation to the people it governs, therefore, the people have a right to revolt if the government fails at its obligations. Like many other Enlightenment philosophers, John Locke’s ideas reflected on the checks and balance system as well as the Declaration of Independence. For example, in the Declaration of Independence, it says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

He believes that the human condition, the traditions, experiences, and knowledge acquired by humans, is far to complex to be described by science and therefore avoids he commonly held views of political science from the Enlightenment Era. However, Thomas Hobbes, as he writes in Leviathan (1651) believed that all political phenomenons could be reported systematically as he equated all humans to machines, predictable by consistently acting in their self interest. [PG 3] Burke’s criticism that can be applied to Hobbes lies on three fronts; that the understanding human condition cannot be derived through logic; that consent, explicit or tacit, does not exist after the first social contract; and that a rebellion is neither possible nor effective when in a social contract. Thomas Hobbes’ prefaces his discussion of the social contract by giving credence to what he understood as science.

In the present assignment, an attempt has been made to evaluate the influence of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on the modern society. At the same time, the connection between the writings of these philosophers and the things that are actually present has also been explored. Both the philosophers were very enlightened thinkers of the 17th century. At the same time, both of them have very strong views regarding human nature and also the role that displayed by the government in the lives of the people. In this regard, Hobbes believed that by their nature, people were selfish but the perspective of Locke was different.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were both social contract theorists, and both natural law theorists. All other natural law theorists assumed that man was by nature a social animal. Hobbes believed in other things. Hobbes was infamous for producing numerous similarly unconventional results in physics and mathematics. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes each advocated divergent tenets of human nature and government during the seventeenth century; John Locke promoted an optimistic view of human nature in which they lived under a government that protected the rights of the people; Thomas Hobbes published his perspective of the human soul as negative, believing the only way to combat its evilness by complete suppression under an absolute ruler.

Locke’s definition of liberty depends on whether the person is in the state of nature, in which people are “without subordination or subjection” (Locke 101) or if they have formed into a commonwealth, or whenever “any number of men are so united into one society, as to quit every one his executive power of the law of nature, and resign it to the public” (Locke 137-38). In the Lockean state of nature, men have a “freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons” (Locke 101). This freedom is still limited by what Locke refers to as the law of nature, or that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Locke 102). He also defines the liberty of the state of nature as “not to be under any will or legislative authority of man” (Locke 109). In his form of commonwealth, there is more limited freedom, in which liberty is to “be under no legislative power, but that established, by the consent of the commonwealth” (Locke 110).

COMPARISON BETWEEN TO THOMAS HOPPES AND JOHN LOCKE VIEWS ON STATE OF NATURE Introduction Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) were both political philosophers. They are mainly known for their master pieces on political philosophy. I.e. Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Two Treatise of Government. Each of them has different views and perspective of the State of Nature and Social Contract.

Hobbes and Locke had opposing views and interpretations of men and their state of nature. Hobbes was around during the time that an absolute monarchy was the acceptable type of government for society. This was most acceptable to Hobbes because he believed that if society would leave man in his own state of nature he would be brutish. Also he believed that a government with

Summary Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theory of social contract, which states that we need moral, legal rules because we want to escape the state of nature which is solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short. In this state, a man can kill others, and there are limited resources. This can soon lead to a state of war in which we are constantly disposed to harm others to achieve our goals. So, in this state of war if a person was to possess a beautiful house or property, and had all the comforts, luxuries, and amenities to lead a wonderful life; others could come and harm him and deprive him of his fruit of labor, life, and liberty. Therefore, the state of nature is that of fear, violence, and distrust.

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, 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.

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