Compare And Contrast Thomas Hobbes Robert Filmer And John Locke

Thomas Hobbes, Robert Filmer and John Locke were all influential people of their time, even though their visions differed from each other. They had different views on human nature, state of nature and government.
Thomas Hobbes was considered a rebel of his time. He rose in opposition of tradition and authority. This made him one of the most hated men because his ideas were considered too modern and extremely dangerous. According to Hobbes, he had three opinions on human nature. The first is that we are all self-interested, driven by power, greed, and vainglory. The second is that we are all capable of using reason. The last point he made is that we are all more or less equal; in terms of physical needs and we are vulnerable to those needs. He had a rather pessimistic view of humans and how we act in order to survive. Thomas Hobbes view of the state of nature was that self interest

In regard to human nature, Locke argued that humans are by nature social animals. Hobbes disagreed and said that we are not social animals by nature, but that we are vulnerable and driven by our passions as well as controlled by them and society could not exist without the power of the state. Filmer on the other hands made the case that it was more true to nature to consider authority just given to us. In terms of who gives a more convincing argument, it would have to be Thomas Hobbes. His call for strong government so as to avoid a war and chaos seems most effective. By realizing rulers are selfish he suggested monarchy was the best option for a government. In order to have the king take interest in the public, that selfishness was going to have to be taken advantage of in the form of a government. A selfish king would not put his country in danger nor would he want disorder. It would be better to submit to the king than have mayhem and war. Challenging authority is also not an option because it is technically