More handpicked essays just for you.
Thomas hobbes philosophy on human nature
John Locke and his philosophies
Thomas hobbes philosophy on human nature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
When it comes to Carl Schmitt and his ideas about John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, I cannot help but wonder if Schmitt even tried to understand what both of those philosophers were trying to say. First off, Schmitt categorizes Hobbes and Locke, which makes sense, but after that it is all down hill. Schmitt gets deeper down into what he believes Locke is talking about but misses Locke’s entire point about executive prerogative. After this, Schmitt jumps to Hobbes as well and discusses how he does not believe that they subject the sovereign power to natural law. Carl Schmitt gets deep down in the differences between John Locke and Thomas Hobbes in “The Problem of Sovereignty”. This is where Schmitt brings up his decisionist theory and places Locke …show more content…
In “Definition of Sovereignty”, Schmitt states that “the exception was something incommensurable to John Locke’s doctrine of the constitutional state and the rationalist eighteenth century.” (Schmitt 13, 14). When it comes to the whole “eighteenth century” part of this quote, I agree mostly with Schmitt, because philosophers like Thomas Hobbes believed that anything outside of the sovereign power is the state of nature and the state of nature must always be avoided. On the other hand, if Schmitt was getting the benefit of the doubt, his argument in this statement would simply be an observation that Locke appears to have some internal contradiction. This could make sense because at one moment Locke says “wherever law ends, tyranny begins” (Locke 189) then the next he discusses acting outside the law, also known as prerogative. However, the first time reading this, the argument that Schmitt is saying John Locke does not understand the idea of exception might leave someone wondering if Schmitt even bothered to read Locke, specifically the entire chapter entitled “Of Prerogative”. In the third paragraph of this chapter, Locke clearly says, “This power to act according to the discretion for the public good, without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it, is that which is …show more content…
As the centuries went on, philosophy, just like many other things, became much more secular. That being said, Schmitt made it very clear in “The Problem of Sovereignty” that “In political reality”, sovereigns no longer act under the idea of natural law (Schmitt 17). Later on in this same chapter, Schmitt discusses how Hobbes would not understand the idea of superior and inferior because Hobbes believes anyone who has power is subject to the other. However, when Hobbes was writing much earlier, the idea of natural law was still a very prominent concept in philosophy and therefore Hobbes believed that even the absolute sovereign was subject to the laws of nature which he clearly states in “Of Civil Laws” when he says the laws the sovereign makes “be not against the law of nature (which is undoubtedly God’s law)” (Hobbes
Plato through Socrates, states: “philosophy, and spirit, speed, and strength as well, must all be combined in the nature of anyone who is going to be a really fine and good guardian of our city” (Plato, 376c, p56). The members of this class will hold the power to legislate and enforce laws, thus making them superior to all other members of the state. Hobbes’ idea of who should be the ruling figure of the state is radically different. He states: “nature hath made man so equal in the faculties of body and mind as 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” (Hobbes, I-1, p74). This reveals Hobbes’ belief that all men are no different from each other, but rather it is each man’s appetites and aversions that differ.
However, I believe the concepts Hobbes maintains are of a more ideal, and proper functioning society. First, he indicates that having a higher power in place eliminates the threat of violence amongst society, and enhances peace amongst people (Hobbes [1651] 2013). Through the achievement of a sovereign, society will avoid reverting back to a state of chaos. Secondly, he presents the idea of a democratic government, in which members of the state make a unified decision on who represents them(Hobbes [1651] 2013). This method of government is still present, and highly effective to this day. It allows individuals who are in power
Aquinas argues that humans’ rational nature incline them for good because they are inclined to know about God and live in society with one another under natural law (94.2, p. 43-44). Aquinas also connects natural law with an eternal law. Aquinas argues that natural law is humans sharing in eternal law which is innate in humans (91.2, p. 18). Hobbes does not leave any place for God in his state of nature. Hobbes argues that in the state of nature there is no right or wrong, just or unjust, or sin, only man’s passions exist (13, p. 90). Every man wages war against every other man. Man is not inclined to live in a society like Aquinas states, but rather, out of the fear of death, man comes together to form a common power (13, p. 90). Hobbes bases this common power on contracts between people. Hobbes argues that a contract with God is impossible unless someone has some supernatural revelation because one cannot know if the contract has been accepted or declined (14, p. 97). It follows that, if man cannot make a contract with God, in the state of nature right and wrong fail to exist, and government arises out of necessity, then in the same state of nature, humans are not inclined for good, share in some sort of eternal law, or live in society with one
Lockes and Hobbes ideas of government differed greatly, Hobbes believed in an absolute government while Locke believed in a very limited one.Locke believed that people were naturally good and trustful and that they had the capacity to govern themselves. So the need of the government only came in the form of stopping any potential disputes that would occur. While Hobbes believed that humans were not all that good and their need for government stemmed from the fact that people cannot govern themselves. Furthermore Locke believed that the governments role was to listen to the people it was governing, a rule by consent. While Hobbes believed that the Government was to rule on it’s own and owed no answers or consent by the people. Moreover Locke believed that the purpose of the government was to protect the property and freedom of its people, while Hobbes believed that the governments role was to tell them what to do. But arguably the biggest difference between the philosophies is the notion of government accountability. Hobbes believed that the government had free reign to do what they please with no backlash, while Locke believed that if the social contract was broken then the people of the community had the right to revolt and over throw the government. To further this point Locke unlike Hobbes believed that leaders should
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state. Their theories are both psychologically insightful, but in nature, they are drastically different. Although they lived in the same timeframe, their ideas were derived from different events happening during this time. Hobbes drew his ideas on man from observation, during a time of civil strife in Europe during the 1640's and 1650's.
Review this essay John Locke – Second treatise, of civil government 1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another.
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.
Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and inalienable equality in the state of nature.... ... middle of paper ... ... Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed.
Locke states that in order for a civil society to be established, the individuals must forfeit some of their rights that they have in the state of nature. This needs to be done so everyone can live together in peace.
In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern
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...
Hobbes and Locke’s Ideas of government reflects subjects that have been put in place, rejected many times, or are still in consideration. The idea to allow the government to have access to our text messages, our emails, and our phone calls to prevent crime and terrorism would be an example of Hobbes idea of government as having an absolute ruler with unlimited power would do whatever is necessary to prevent chaos. But in todays society Locke’s idea of government has been favored as the government would only be able to do that with a warrant and reason for the warrant, to protect our natural rights. Locke’s idea of government reflects our police department regulations also; to protect our natural rights police have limited power, as they cannot do whatever they feel necessary to prevent crime. But if the police department was reflected by Hobbes idea of government the police could do whatever they felt necessary, which in today’s society could actually cause more chaos, then prevent
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both social contract scholars. Social Contract Theory is the speculation that one's ethical commitments are indigent upon an implied understanding between people to structure a general public (Friend, 2004). Both Hobbes and Locke utilize a social contract hypothesis as an issue of clarifying the beginning of government. Hobbes and Locke are principally prestigious for their showstoppers on political reasoning; Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Two Treatise of Government. Each one contains altogether different originations of a social contract in any case, both hold the focal thought that individuals in a State of Nature would be ready to repudiate their freedom for state security (Kelly, 2004, p. 202). While both
Hobbes believes that “law is nothing more than the will of the sovereign” . A legal philosopher named John Austin later on developed this by defining law as a law simply because it is being obeyed. In his theory of legal positivism, it “saw the defining feature not as i...
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are all social contract theorists that believe in how the people should have certain rights with allows them to have individual freedom. They also believe that the people must give consent in order for the government to work and progress. Although Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have similar aspects in their theories, they differ from each other through the reason why a government should be created.