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. State of Nature is the condition under which men lived prior to the formation of societies which may be considered as an historical fact or a hypothetical claim" (Steele, 1993). That is, the condition that men lived before the formation of legitimate government. Social contract on the other hand, is the hypothesis that one's moral obligations are dependent upon an implicit agreement between individuals to form a society (Celeste, 2004). Both Hobbes and Locke used social contract as a means of explaining their Ideas on the origin
…show more content…
Hobbes viewed state of nature as a state of war. According to Hobbes, in a state of nature, there is no right to property because no one affords another that right. He stated that property and possessions would inevitably cause men to become enemies. Hobbes believes that people have equal physical and mental ability to harm, and that people will do so for three reasons - competition, difference, and glory. " so that in the state of nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel, first, competition; secondly, difference; thirdly, glory" (Hobbes 2008, p.85). Hobbes believes that there is no room for society because when there is no safety, nobody takes steps to improve their lives. " In such condition, there is no place for industry because the fruit thereof is uncertain (Hobbes, p.
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.
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.
John Locke is an enlightened political philosopher whose explanations to his ideas remains profoundly influential. Locke believes people should have the right to do anything they want without the government enforcing them to do a task. In The Second Treatise, Locke discusses some vital concepts of his thinking, beginning with a discussion of the State of Nature. He explains that humans move from a state of nature characterized by perfect freedom and are governed by reason to a civil government in which the authority is vested in a legislative and executive power. In the State of Nature, men are born equal, to have perfect liberty to maintain.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth century, there was a change in the thought process of mankind. Two prominent and opposing viewpoints came in the form of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Thomas Hobbes was a man who influenced society’s thoughts on government. John Locke, on the other hand, had a heavy and lasting influence in the shaping of modern politics, the nature of individual rights, and the views on human nature. Hobbes and Locke both derived two states of nature that though they had some similarities were polar opposites.
“In 1651, Hobbes wrote one of the most influential philosophical treatises in human history, Leviathan or the Matter Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil. Like his rival, John Locke, Hobbes posited that in a state of nature men and women were free to pursue and defend their own interests, which resulted in a state of war in which “the life of man” was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. ”(“Philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers and the First Principles,”
According to Hobbes, the state of nature he described and supposed to be men’s condition when they have no sovereign over them. He did mean to assert that men have ever actually lived in such a condition without any form of government or society and he did mean that he obviously altogether mistaken, since as far back as we go in human history we find evidence of social and communal living. Hobbes himself expressed himself very loosely on this point because he was not much
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 believed that the state of law state of law represented a state of permanent war, which posed as a risk to individuals. Hobbes tries to portray humans as selfish individuals who only care about there own priorities. According to Hobbes, a person’s life is most threatened in the state of nature, and the very core interest of every person is to survive and ensure the “preservation of his own nature. Hobbes also believes that the only reason men give up their authority is to find common ground through peace instead of going to war. On the other Locke trusts the condition of nature is a state of "perfect freedom" and equity, not a condition of certain confusion and defilement.
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.
Comparing Hobbes and Locke Hobbes and Locke have many similar and different. some similarities are they both believed the natural state of mankind before forming a government is the State of Nature. Another is divine rights or 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.
FINAL EXAMINATION 1) Explain rule of self-preservation, property, and laws of nature in John Locke's State of Nature. (2 points) Above many of the concepts that John Locke introduces in his writing, The Second Treatise of Government, he introduces us to a “State of Nature”, a state with no government that is ruled instead by what he calls “Natural Laws” based on reason and self preservation as well as a state of equality and liberty, that is defined by the fact that all people are born equal and no one has any legitimate authority over the other and are free to do as they please. Locke makes difference of Natural Liberty and Social Liberty, the first being living entirely under the laws of nature and not any government or legislative ruling
The state of nature is a concept of philosophy used in religion, cultural, and socio-economic terms to demonstrate the conditions of what the lives of people might have been like before societies came into existence. When identifying this on a general level, the state of nature is the predicaments in which humans interacted and how they react to those situations of ethical and moral grounds. The importance behind this theory is very impactful. The state of nature is identifiable within a situation without government, employed in social contract theory in order to justify political authority.