Compare And Contrast John Locke And The Social Contract

1233 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Thomas hobbes, view on human nature

Many of the greatest thinkers of the 17th and 18th centuries theorized about human nature. Many like John Locke believed that living minds were like a blank slate. Others such as Thomas Hobbes believed people were born “bad or brutish”. These philosophies were shaped by their views on the English Revolution. Hobbes and Locke both experienced many things during their lifetime that influenced the way they constructed their philosophies. The events in their lives were clearly evident when they talked about human nature and the social contract.
Thomas Hobbes lived from 1588-1679. He was one of the greatest thinkers of his time, with much opposition on all sides. He believed people were born naturally ‘bad’, and that they could not be trusted …show more content…

The idea of the social contract came about during the age of enlightenment. It is a model to go off of when asking questions about the beginnings of a society. It also brought up questions concerning the roles of the states and the individuals. A social contract is the idea that society is dependent on a contract among the people to form a society. The contract is a political agreement which allows us to believe whatever we want morally. This concept dates all the way back to Socrates, in his explanation in Crito, he explains why he should stay in prison and accept the judgement of his society. Locke and Hobbes were both social contract theorists and natural law theorists. They were intrigued by the ideas of how man would live and survive in nature, and how they would govern themselves when left to their own devices. They also theorized about the importance of one realizing who they are, their human nature, and how people were or were not born a certain way. Their conclusions were vastly …show more content…

They both lived long lives and saw many things that influenced their philosophies. John Locke believed people have the ability to chose to be either good or evil. There will never be someone powerful enough to control every action that a person takes, even with power a person’s actions come down to the morals within a person and their ability to understand what actions are considered to be just. Thomas Hobbes will always have the philosophy of believing that people are born bad and no good will come upon a person in the state of nature without rules and a ruler. To some, this may be the way to keep a society in place, but others might disagree. What we know is that these two philosophies will live

Show More
Related

  • How Did Thomas Hobbes Influence The Enlightenment

    825 Words  | 2 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes was a philosopher during The Enlightenment whose philosophy laid the foundation for the democratic theory. The Enlightenment was a period of time from the 1620’s to the 1780’s that provided an emphasis on individualism rather than the traditional path of authority. The Enlightenment came about during the Scientific Revolution. It was the Scientific Revolution that began to change the way people and scientist looked at the physical world around them. Scientist began to question the traditional scientific beliefs, similarly to the way the philosophers began to challenge the traditional social and governmental beliefs. Hobbes himself, believed more in absolutism, the belief that the power should be given to one person.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of John Locke: The Second Treatise Of Government

    2379 Words  | 5 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Locke: The Power Debate

    1209 Words  | 3 Pages

    Although Hobbes and Locke agree that all people are equal, they perceive natural rights and human nature in very different ways. Hobbes believed that people innately love liberty and dominion over others and that men fight due to three “principal causes”: “competition,” which results in men invading for “gain;” “insecurity,” which makes men invade for “safety;” and “glory,” which makes men invade for “reputation.” He states that men are natural...

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes And John Locke: Contribution To Communal Structure

    1309 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Enlightenment in the Eighteenth century was an era that emphasized individual freedom and autonomy. Two important thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, contributed to ideas about constructing a community at the end of the Scientific Revolution in the Seventeenth century that is made up of individuals. Hobbes composed an essay entitled, Leviathan, published in 1651, that addresses the negativity of human nature, and the movement towards governing through an absolute ruler. Locke’s essay Of Civil Government, published in 1690, portrays human nature as inherently good and equal, and devises a government that promotes these human rights of every individual. A community is made of individuals, therefore

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Hobbes And John Locke

    1432 Words  | 3 Pages

    The social contract theory was a political foundation that underlined the distinct forms of government. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke mention the formation of governments, the main key to form a successful government is through consent such as voting, joining a military, or allow to be ruled by a sovereign. The contrasting ideologies by both theorists differ in human nature, Hobbes believed that man is not a social animal while John Locke opposed to this idea and stated that by nature man was a social animal. The distinction that both portrayed in the role of the government in a man 's life and the perspective on the state of nature were argued in the following texts, Leviathan and Second Treatise of Government. Society consents to a government

    Read More

  • Equality: Comparing Hobbes and Locke

    2000 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...ideal forms of government. They do interlock in ideas very frequently because they both believe in man having god given equality such as their equally right to compete for resources. They do differ in how they view man’s state of nature because Locke believes that man is a rational and social being who will avoid being in a constant state of war while Hobbes says there is no way to prevent that constant state of war without an absolute sovereign as government. Their theories are both based on scarcity of goods because man’s goal is to obtain these scarce goods to self-preserve. Locke and Hobbes both have ideal forms of government, with Locke believing in a unified government that is maintained by the will of the people and Hobbes absolute sovereign as a government. They attest that these forms of government is what is needed to achieve equality and to preserve man.

    Read More

  • John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract

    1125 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Enlightenment was an astonishing time of transformation in Europe. During this time in the eighteenth century there was a progressive movement that was labeled by its criticism of the normal religious, social, and political perceptions. A number of significant thinkers, with new philosophies, had inspired creativeness and change. These thinkers had many different thoughts and views on people and the way they act, and views on the government. Two well-known and most influential thinkers of this time were the English political philosopher John Locke and the French political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These two men had laid down some of the intellectual grounds of the modern day government and both had different opinions on what the government’s role in a society.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of John Locke's Social Contract

    1054 Words  | 3 Pages

    For those who are familiar with John Locke’s social contract should remember that as an individual we give up certain freedoms that we see fit in order to protect our basic rights to life, liberty, and property. If an individual breaks this “contract” then why should they reape its protection. If someone violates the terms of a contract then they lose all that it entails. Why should it be any different in this situation. The individual has willing broken the contract and should suffer as anyone else would in this certain situation. By taking away the rights to life of someone else that person has forfeit their own. This means that they officially become the state 's property does it not? This is something to think of as it would completely change the system by which our criminals of a caliber as high as this would be tried. People that argue against this ask for a sympathetic role to which leads the question to,”To what are you appealing?” At this point they are already unable to contribute back to society. They are in a word a parasite leeching away at the life of those that follow the rules that they as a part of society have created and contribute to.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2134 Words  | 5 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes And Locke's Theory Of Government

    1460 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two English philosophers who were very similar thinkers. They both studies at Oxford, and they both witnessed the civil Revolution. The time when they lived in England influenced both of their thoughts as the people were split into two groups, those whom though the king should have absolute power, and the other half whom thought people could govern themselves. However Hobbes and Locke both rejected the idea of divine right, such as there was no one person who had the right from God to rule. They both believed in the dangers of state of nature, they thought without a government there is more chance of war between men. However their theories differ, Hobbes theories are based on his hypothetical ideas of the state

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Locke And Socrates

    1169 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to Socrates if you reside in an area and at a mature age you decide to continue living there then you there by give consent to abide by the laws of the land. To be more specific he says, “But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command.” On the other hand, Locke’s idea of a social contract is explicit, meaning there must be some form physical agreement between a group of people enter in to society. Socrates’s idea is great but, it would lead to chaos and possible war that is why it’s only partial applied in today’s world. Let’s take for example the US and Mexico. Using Socrates philosophy, we would have massive migrations of Mexican people who just enter the US territory and entered into our social contract. Socrates’s idea is not appropriate because it would eliminate country borders and who can and cannot enter. His idea is only useful if you were born in the US, then you would automatically enter the social contract unless at a certain age they decide to leave. Locke’s theory, on the other hand, makes sense and is seen every day. Let us use the US and Mexico example again but this time with Locke’s idea. In this case documentation, signatures, identification, etc. are all need for Mexicans to enter into our social contract. Let’s say for example you

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and the Realist School

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The Social Contract Theory: Hobbes, Locke & Rousseau

    1286 Words  | 3 Pages

    Particularly influenced by specific events taking place during their lifetime, each one of them perceived human nature differently and therefore had variant opinions about the role of government under the Social Contract. For instance, Thomas Hobbes saw humans exclusively as self-interested creatures. He believed that everything we do is frivolously premeditated and rationalized in order to accomplish our objectives and satisfy as many of our desires as possible. From these pessimistic views of human nature, Hobbes goes on to suggest why we would be willing to submit ourselves to political authority. According to Hobbes’ hypothesis, life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

    Read More

  • International Law Importance

    881 Words  | 2 Pages

    “Hobbes is famous for his early and elaborate development of what has come to be known as “social contract theory”, the method of justifying political principles

    Read More

More about Compare And Contrast John Locke And The Social Contract

Open Document