Differences Between the Arguements of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in Leviathan and Second Treatise of Government

1315 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Hobbes vs. Locke essay

When initially looking at the arguments of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in Leviathan and Second Treatise of Government, they seem to agree on many things. Both philosophers believe that human reasoning is based on appetites and aversions, that humans have a fundamental right to self-preservation, and, above all, that a strong central government is the way to remedy the problems with the state of nature. However, after looking closely, many important differences become apparent. All differences between the arguments of Hobbes and Locke, in regards to human nature and the formation of a social contract, stem from two crucial points: the authors’ value of individualism and sociality, both in the state of nature and in civil society, and whether the suggested governmental system’s power is based on fear or trust.
According to Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature is a brutal one. Every person is rigidly individualized, with a personal idea of what is right and what is wrong. Humans are innately asocial, and because of this, the state of nature is coincident with the state of war (Hobbes, 1968: 185). Although this “state of war” does not necessarily mean direct fighting, but rather the disposition towards violence, the lack of security is enough to keep people in constant fear of death (186). This constant fear of violation is exhausting, and so people, as stated in Hobbes’ fundamental law of nature, seek a more peaceful way of life (190). Locke, however, completely disagrees with Hobbes’ pessimistic perspective of the state of nature. He states that humans are inherently social creatures, and that the state of nature is one of community and cooperation (Locke, 1980: 13). This could not be farther from Hobbes’ view, which is why the soc...

... middle of paper ...

...nd, advocated for a representative democracy. This is reasonable as well, because the cooperative, social nature he attributed to human beings made it unnecessary to instill fear, and more effective to simply work together. It was necessary for Locke to find a way to organize this cooperation, which he did by entrusting executive power to a governing assembly. Since the aim of Locke’s government was to protect the property of its constituents, the best way to do this was to ensure that justice was brought through an indifferent, selfless and consistent system. Hobbes’ sovereign’s goal was to provide peace and security to its subjects, and Locke’s government was intended to do the same. Therefore, although it seems as though Hobbes’ and Locke’s arguments may be completely irreconcilable, the differences can all be attributed to the ways they interpreted human nature.

Show More
Related

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    1937 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...d seek peace. In establishing a covenant and instituting a sovereign, men give up the rights they possessed in the state of nature, as well as the right to live without tyranny. However for Hobbes, those sacrifices are overshadowed by what is gained by living under a truly absolute sovereign. A sovereign, corrupt or not, guarantees order and prevents chaos and death. Those are, word for word, the reasons the social contract was initially established and therefore fully justify the creation of an absolute sovereign. Thomas Hobbes, who wrote Leviathan during the English Civil Wars, looked out his window at chaos and decided that survival should be pursued at all costs.

    Read More

  • The Influence of Locke and Hobbes on Government

    1741 Words  | 4 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that organize people into societies, and is effective in persuading us that a limited government is the best government.

    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

    Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature. Even though they both believed that men naturally have to some extent equality and freedom, what makes their concepts different is the presence or absence of the natural law. In Hobbes' theory, men in their natural state are at constant war, the war of all against all. Another Hobbes belief is that most people are selfish and tend to do everything for their own reason. To Hobbes humans are driven to maximize personal gains so in a world where there are no rules humans are in constant fear of each other as they each try to get as much as they can, enough is never enough.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Hobbes And John Locke

    1432 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hobbes and Locke argued that people mainly formed a state for different reasons according to their ideology. Hobbes mentioned that humans only formed a state for their mere self interest to protect themselves from the wrath of others. In contrast Locke had a more positive perspective that individuals believed it was moral to form a state to protect their natural rights and would not be deprived from their rights. In Leviathan, Hobbes asserts, "Conferre all of their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all of their Wills, by plurality of voices," (Locke, 95). Comparing the statement of Hobbes with Locke is the following, “It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people," (Locke, 70). Both theories on the sovereign power relates to the human nature. For example Hobbes’s believes that humans need a strong authority to protect citizens from each other and outside forces, which is why the sovereign has absolute power. Critiquing Locke 's perspective he mentions that the people in state of nature live in peace and tranquility amongst each other setting moral limits without having a sovereign (central

    Read More

  • Human Nature as Viewed by Thomas Hobbes and David Hume

    1952 Words  | 4 Pages

    Hobbes views human nature as the war of each man against each man. For Hobbes, the essence of human nature can be found when we consider how man acts apart from any government or order. Hobbes describes the world as “a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...

    Read More

  • Equality: Comparing Hobbes and Locke

    2000 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    ”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.

    Read More

  • Political Science Final Exam

    758 Words  | 2 Pages

    Locke believes that state of nature is pre-political but at the same time it is not pre-moral. He believes that everyone i...

    Read More

  • Hobbes's Theory Of Political Nature And The Theories Of Human Nature

    1286 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Individual Liberty: Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls

    2100 Words  | 5 Pages

    ����������� Thomas Hobbes is an important political and social philosopher. He shares his political philosophy in his work Leviathan. Hobbes begins by describing the state of nature, which is how humans coped with one another prior to the existence of government. He explains that without government, �the weakest has the strength to kill the strongest� (Hobbes 507). People will do whatever it takes to further their own interests and protect their selves; thus, creating a constant war of �every man against every man� (Hobbes 508). His three reasons for people fighting amongst each other prior to government include �competition,� �diffidence,� and �glory� (Hobbes 508). He explains how men fight to take power over other people�s property, to protect them selves, and to achieve fame. He describes life in the state of nature as being �solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short� (Hobbes 508). Hobbes goes on to say that if men can go on to do as they please, there will always be war. To get out of this state of nature, individuals created contracts with each other and began to form a government.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Idea of the State and Its Relation with the Citizen

    1058 Words  | 3 Pages

    When looking at Hobbes’ idea of the state and its relation with the citizen, it is strikingly shocking how supportive of the authoritarian and absolutist form of monarchical government he is. His ideas are extreme for today’s democratic world however, he is seen as the founder of great liberal political thoughts such as the natural contract. Furthermore he gives great emphasis to the study of the individual in the first book of his work. Although, obviously monarchical, Hobbes also argues in favor of democracy and aristocracy: two less authoritarian forms of government. Hobbes has a historical reputation for validating absolute monarchy, and his work is often dismissed as dictatorial. But it must be remembered that, for Hobbes, sovereignty does not only reside in a king but also in sovereign congresses and sovereign democracies and ultimately the people enable any of these three forms of government to rule, according to what best suits the community.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    1044 Words  | 3 Pages

    The main critics of Thomas Hobbes’ work are most often those with a more optimistic view of human nature. However, if one is to really look at a man’s actions in depth, a self-serving motivation can always be found. The main problem with Hobbes’ claims is that he does not account for the more Darwinian perspective that helping one’s own species survive is at the same time a selfish and unwar-like act. Thus his conclusion that without a governing body, we are essentially at war with one another is not completely true as years of evolution can help disprove.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government

    3013 Words  | 7 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes And Locke's Theory Of Government

    1460 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

More about Differences Between the Arguements of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in Leviathan and Second Treatise of Government

Open Document