Thomas Hobbes creates his view of the perfect society in his book “Leviathan”. In it, he explains that the perfect “commonwealth” is ruled by a sovereign with complete power. In Leviathan, Hobbes creates a human machine with the citizens of the state as the body and the sovereign as the head controlling the entire contraption. Hobbes’s overall belief in people is not that they are evil, but rather they are moved by passions that control their behavior. Therefore, they need a sovereign with absolute power to dictate them. Hobbes’s state of nature is what the natural state of mankind would be with no civilization, government, etc. As Hobbes overall view of humankind is that their passions lead them to be selfish and power hungry, he describes …show more content…
To Locke, the state of nature is that of “perfect freedom” in which man may do what he pleases with himself and his possessions without having to ask permission of the government or other people. Locke feels that the state of nature also contains equality, therefore saying he believes all people should consider themselves equal. In Locke’s state of nature while there is no government and therefore no laws, what it does not lack is morality. This is very different from Hobbes who believed in divine rights and that without laws and government mankind will ultimately be in a constant state of war. In Locke’s “Of the State of Nature”, Locke basically begins describing his own form of democracy. Hobbes explains a sovereign with absolute power over its people, while Locke explains a government that may be in place for the benefit of its people. Locke describes the perfect government existing in order to protect people’s liberty and property, yet if it fails to do so then it may be overthrown. Locke’s views come down to revealing this ultimate belief that people are overall not good nor evil, but rather they are a blank slate decided upon by the environment they live in. Therefore, if people accept that they should create a civilized society then the humans could maintain that, as they would be exposed to good, moreover, they would be …show more content…
While Hobbes believes that man’s passions lead him to be naturally selfish and power hungry, Locke seems to believe that man in not naturally good or bad, but instead he is a blank slate. Upon reading both Locke and Hobbes and gaining an understanding of their philosophies, I came to feel that I understood and sympathized with Locke’s ideas. I agree with Locke that man is not born good or evil and is instead a product of his environment and that a government should be in place to benefit its people. That being said, I do believe that if mankind begins to become a place of evil, then Hobbes’s state of nature is most likely what will occur. John Locke’s philosophies on what a government should look like are what went on to help shape many staples of the United States Constitution, which has now been in place for two hundred and twenty-nine years, while absolute sovereigns have been rapidly dying out. To me, that says a great deal about which idea of government is the best suited for human
In Second Treatise of Government John Locke characterizes the state of nature as one’s ability to live freely and abide solely to the laws of nature. Therefore, there is no such thing as private property, manmade laws, or a monarch. Locke continues to say that property is a communal commodity; where all humans have the right to own and work considering they consume in moderation without being wasteful. Civil and Political Societies are non-existent until one consents to the notion that they will adhere to the laws made by man, abide by the rules within the community, allow the ability to appoint men of power, and interact in the commerce circle for the sake of the populace. Locke goes further to state that this could be null in void if the governing body over extends their power for the gain of absolute rule. Here, Locke opens the conversation to one’s natural right to rebel against the governing body. I personally and whole heartily agree with Locke’s principles, his notion that all human beings have the natural right to freedoms and the authority to question their government on the basis that there civil liberties are being jeopardized.
Above anything else, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan is a creation story and an investigation of human nature. The story begins in a time of chaos and death and through a journey of human development culminates in the establishment of a sustainable and rational society—the commonwealth—led by a sovereign. At a first casual glance, Hobbes’ reasoning of the transformation from the state of nature to the commonwealth is not airtight. A few possible objections can be quickly spotted: the contradictions of natural law with suicide and the civil law to honor even harmful covenants. Hobbes deals with some of these issues and seems to ignore others, but he does address in detail the most significant objection to his theory: the unlimited and unchecked power given to the sovereign. The establishment of the commonwealth culminates in a covenant that grants the sovereign absolute power in enforcing the civil laws of the state, but also guarantees the sovereign’s status as above the law. How does this ensure peace and survival, as is the point of the commonwealth? Hobbes provides many convincing reasons why it would be difficult, counterproductive, and impossible for the sovereign to not be above the law, but in the end, disorder and chaos are worse than any tyranny.
He believes that by transferring all rights to a sovereign, the threat of the state of nature will be diminished. A sovereign elected will be able to represent and protect everyone equally, they are not a ruler of the people, but a representative. The Leviathan differs from a principality and a republic by establishing the institution of the commonwealth through the social contract. To understand how the Leviathan differs from either a principality or a republic, one must look at the principles of each to decipher how Hobbes bears resemblance to and disagrees with Machiavelli. The Leviathan state resembles a principality by giving absolute power to one sovereign.
Hobbes' theory is a pessimistic look at human being and the way they act around each other but Locke's theory suggests that people are more easy-going and peaceful towards each other. Hobbes point of view on human nature and how a government should be run is a more realistic way of looking at things than John Locke?s theory though. Both Hobbes and Locke see human nature differently, Hobbes sees people as being run by selfishness whereas Locke says that people are naturally kind. As we see in the news daily, people are often cruel and inhumane, and we also see kinder people in everyday life. We see people who give up their own personal pleasure so they can serve others. But these people are far and few between, it becomes quickly obvious that humans are drawn towards self-happiness.
At first reading, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan can be an intimidating piece of academia. In spite of this, Part 2 of his work, ‘Of Commonwealth’, is still a core piece of political philosophy. Hobbes proposes that the only true functional, permanent and society is one of absolute authority. This essay is focused primarily on the identification and translation of Hobbes’ main doctrines against divided authority, versus the aforementioned unified state. This will be done by looking arguments about the initial construction of the state, the problems of giving each individual the responsibility of power, and benefits of the sovereign as a singular all-powerful figure versus alternatives.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had some similarities in their beliefs about human nature. They both claimed that humans would always be willing to give up some of their freedom or rights to have security and feel safe. When John Locke says “The enjoyment of rights in the state of nature is unsafe and insecure. Hence, each man joins in society with others to preserve life, liberty, and property.” it is showing that he thinks the state of nature is unsafe, so people give
Hobbes and Locke’s each have different ideologies of man’s state of nature that develops their ideal form of government. They do however have similar ideas, such as how man is born with a perfect state of equality that is before any form of government and social contract. Scarcity of goods ultimately leads to Hobbes and Locke’s different states of nature that shapes their two different ideal governments because Hobbes believes that scarcity of goods will bring about a constant state of war, competition, and greed of man that cannot be controlled without a absolute sovereign as government while Locke believes that with reasoning and a unified government, man will succeed in self preservation of himself and others.
”3 He believes that all men are equal in the state of nature despite any preexisting differences between them because they are ultimately powerful enough to defend themselves and their resources. “Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of the body, and mind; so that though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himself at any benefit, to another may not pretend, as well as he. ”4 Hobbes implies that it is necessary for a civil government to dictate over its citizens because humans are naturally in a state of war, and equally capable I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which ultimately prevents the state of war from occurring in society.
I believe that Locke is correct in his analysis of the state of nature however; Locke‘s theory includes many assumptions. First is the assumption of a system of morality, the natural law derives from a theory of justice, a set of rights. No one would have any "rights" at all in the absence of a moral code applicable to human actions, nor would there be any standard of "just" punishment. Locke frequently uses the term "rights" and appeals to conscience and "calm reason", all of which reflect his assumptions about justice and morality.
Thomas Hobbes begins Leviathan with Book 1: Of Man, in which he builds, layer by layer, a foundation for his eventual argument that the “natural condition” of man, or one without sovereign control, is one of continuous war, violence, death, and fear.
Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different, even opposing, views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role in their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things are far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure.
Hobbes explanation of the state and the sovereign arises from what he calls “the State of Nature”. The State of Nature is the absence of political authority. There is no ruler, no laws and Hobbes believes that this is the natural condition of humanity (Hobbes 1839-45, 72). In the State of Nature there is equality. By this, Hobbes means, that there is a rough equality of power. This is because anyone has the power to kill anyone (Hobbes 1839-45, 71). Hobbes argues that the State of Nature is a violent, continuous war between every person. He claims that the State of nature is a state of w...
The understanding of the state of nature is essential to both theorists’ discussions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is equivalent to a state of war. Locke’s description of the state of nature is more complex: initially the state of nature is one of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation”. Transgressions against the law of nature, or reason which “teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions,” are but few. The state of nature, according to Locke’s Treatise, consists of the society of man, distinct from political society, live together without any superior authority to restrict and judge their actions. It is when man begins to acquire property that the state of nature becomes somewhat less peaceful.
Hobbes was a strong believer in the thought that human nature was evil. He believed that “only the unlimited power of a sovereign could contain human passions that disrupt the social order and threatened civilized life.” Hobbes believed that human nature was a force that would lead to a constant state of war if it was not controlled. In his work the Leviathan, he laid out a secular political statement in which he stated the significance of absolutism.
Thomas Hobbes? idea of a perfect government was one of small proportions. All of the citizens of a country had a ?covenant?, or promise with the ruler. This covenant with the ruler stated that the citizen would give up the right to govern his or herself, and give that right to the ruler. Hobbes? idea of society arises from an innate competition between every man. Everyone seeks their advantage, and is always at war with everyone else for that advantage. These factions negotiate, according to Hobbes, complying with whatever principles will ensure survival for its members. So according to Hobbes, war is the natural state of man. Peace is only had by our natural tendencies to compromise, and survive.