Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparisons in the political views of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
Comparisons in the political views of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
Reflections on hobbes and locke
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Do people obey government, or rather the “Law,” out of fear of being punished? Or is subservience merely a small price to pay for order and shelter from the fires of chaos? This could be the most important question in all of “Political science.” It is a question that goes back to some of the first political documents, specifically the Magna Carta, which stated that “no one man is above the Law.” The question being, whose law and how did that law come to be enforced? Any middle school civics student can roughly explain to you the concept of a “Social contract.” A Social contract can be explained in the most literal context by the idea of paying taxes. We as citizens give up some our private capital, to invest in public facilities such as law …show more content…
The regime provided order, V shamelessly existed to destroy this order out of selfish vendetta later revealed, than moral-political stance. Hobbes would even agree with the Norse-fire’s stance of absolute obedience from its citizens as a perfect form of governing. How dare V challenge this order for selfish pursuits of his individualistic concerns instead of thinking on behalf of the welfare of society as a greater …show more content…
Locke believed that men had an inner morality that “thou shalt not kill” or harm. “No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions” (Locke) This rhetoric very much influencing the founding fathers of our own democracy. Lock believed that other organizations could exist outside the influence of government, like the church, banks, and independent judiciaries. This differs from the Norse-Fire regime where it seems the church and government are fused into one ultra-authoritative power, outlawing any opposition ideas or forces. Like Hobbes Locke believed that revolt was necessary if a state failed to protect order, however Locke also justifies revolt by “In case of the abuse of power and the removal of rights” (Lectures.) This is where “V” finds some legitimacy in his quest for radical social upheaval. The abuse of power is obvious, but in some ways ok in exchange for order, however as Evy finds out in the film the Norsefire regime artificially created fear in the population, and therefore a greater reliance and need for themselves. The regime created the virus that decimated the rest of the world, sending it into chaos. Therefore
John Locke was perhaps the best example of someone who rejected the absolute view of government and had views that were radically different from it. Locke believe that people were born reasonable and moral – it was their natur...
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.
John Locke strongly believed in more rights for the people and was against oppression. In his book, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke stated, “(W)e must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose [manage] of their possessions. . .” (Document A). Locke means every man is naturally equal, no one was created better and he has certain guaranteed rights. This helps society because it would deny a monarch to strip a person of their guaranteed rights and it would make the monarch less powerful and his/her power would be given to the people.
Locke believed that the role of the government was to protect property and resolve disputes through administrative justice or by creating legislation. The government would be created through the consent of the people. Locke believed that freedom in the state was “having the liberty to order and use your property and to be free from the arbitrary will of another.” No one person can claim divine right to rule, because there is no way to determine if that person is actually divine or not. If government is not fulfilling their duty, the people have a right to overthrow it (i.e. revolution; was a major influence for American revolutionaries). For Locke, law is enlightening and liberating to humans. “law manifests what’s good for everybody.” The key reason for political society is for men to improve land. Locke believes men have mutual interest in coming together to protect land. Men must enter an agreement because there are a few bad apples, though not everyone is bad. If these few apples can be dealt with, their impact can be
Self-preservation is an important factor in shaping the ideologies of Hobbes and Locke as it ties in to scarcity of resources and how each of them view man’s sate of nature. Hobbes and Locke both believe in self-preservation but how each of them get there is very different. Hobbes believes that man’s state of nature is a constant state of war because of his need to self-preserve. He believes that because of scarcity of goods, man will be forced into competition, and eventually will take what is others because of competition, greed, and his belief of scarce goods. Hobbes also states that glory attributes to man’s state of nature being a constant state of war because that drives man to go after another human or his property, on the one reason of obtaining glory even if they have enough to self preserve. Equality ties in with Hobbes view of man being driven by competition and glory because he believes that because man is equal in terms of physical and mental strength, this give them an equal cha...
What John Locke was concerned about was the lack of limitations on the sovereign authority. During Locke’s time the world was surrounded by the monarch’s constitutional violations of liberty toward the end of the seventeenth century. He believed that people in their natural state enjoy certain natural, inalienable rights, particularly those to life, liberty and property. Locke described a kind of social contract whereby any number of people, who are able to abide by the majority rule, unanimously unite to affect their common purposes. The...
Hobbes’ theory on the condition of the state of nature, and government are not only more applicable today but his reasoning is far sounder than that of Rousseau. These concepts were significantly conditionally reliant. What Hobbes imagined was not a pre-societal period, rather he ...
Through my research and findings of obedience to authority this ancient dilemma is somewhat confusing but needs understanding. Problem with obedience to authority has raised a question to why people obey or disobey and if there are any right time to obey or not to obey. Through observation of many standpoints on obedience and disobedience to authority, and determined through detailed examination conducted by Milgram “The Perils Of Obedience,” Doris Lessing “Group Minds” and Shirley Jackson “The Lottery”. We have to examine this information in hopes of understanding or at least be able to draw our own theories that can be supported and proven on this subject.
The representative population of a community is not comfortable when confronted by an individual who defies the laws that bind them. Whether or not the laws or the powers behind them are just, the populace must deal with any challenge to their authority. In some cases, the community, fearful of a powerful regime, will side with that power and avoid the risks associated with rebellion. Others find the tyranny too unjust to stand idly by and, risking their lives, join with other defiant individuals against it.
Authority cannot exist without obedience. Society is built on this small, but important concept. Without authority and its required obedience, there would only be anarchy and chaos. But how much is too much, or too little? There is a fine line between following blindly and irrational refusal to obey those in a meaningful position of authority. Obedience to authority is a real and powerful force that should be understood and respected in order to handle each situation in the best possible manner.
On some level, whether it is to our teachers, bosses, or just the local government, the majority of us are obedient. According to Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram, “Obedience is as basic an element in the structure of social life as one can point to” (631). Society would lack order and be full of chaos without obedience. Authority helps society function; obeying that authority ensures stability. But at what point does obedience cross the line from advantageous to detrimental? Obedience becomes dangerous when it is harmful to one’s self or others.
In The Leviathan Thomas Hobbes argues for the establishment of a society that does not contain the elements of its own demise. Hobbes views civil war as a society’s ultimate demise, and the only way to avoid it is for the citizens initially to submit to an absolute political authority. For Hobbes, civil war is inevitable in every type of government except an absolute government. In order to sustain this absolute government, the citizens not only must submit to the absolute political authority, but they must also not partake in activities that actively undermine the absolute political authority’s power. For these reasons, it is clear that Hobbes believes in political obedience and its ability to influence the peace of a society. Furthermore,
Hobbes, on the other hand argues that justice is needed for people to live together in civil society. He outlines this idea down to human beings in the
In the Locke-inspired film of V for Vendetta the disposition is that people should not be afraid of the government, but the government should be afraid of the people. The obligation of the people to revolt gives purpose as well a bigger picture of balance and a brighter future for the self and therefore the rest of community in seeking after noble ideals. Even if a political structure was to fail, it is better to have revolted in exercise of rights possessed than to have never truly experienced the adventure that is progression and deliberation. To stay silent in a time of oppression is one of the greatest sins that Abraham Lincoln pointed out, and that the freedom of one’s souls right to breathe should be verbally manifested as well. Taking Rousseau’s thought experiment of stripping away all cultural and human norms and then evaluating life should be part of the design of the political structure that is worth investing in.
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.