Many philosophers have tried to define the characteristics of human nature and the society that best fit this description. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two of these philosophers that take contrasting views on the state of human nature, natural law, and the social contract between beings. While there are many differences in their assertions, there are also a few similarities. These two philosophies can be evaluated to come to the conclusion that the Second Treatise on Government is a more accurate description than that of the Leviathan. In this essay, I will discuss the aspects of both the Leviathan and the Second Treatise on Government and the rationale for my conclusion that John Locke’s society is a more correct characterization of mankind using state of nature, natural law, and the social contract made between the citizens and the governing officials. …show more content…
Hobbes believes that human nature is defined by alienation. The state of nature is a state of war and it is a natural state of survival of the fittest. Hobbes states, “And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavor to destroy or subdue one another,” (pg. 3 Hobbes). The Leviathan outlines the idea that man has the desire to fulfill only his immediate needs, therefore they do not need to socialize with other beings. In the state of nature, men only interact in the state of war or competition over resources. In Hobbes’ state of nature, men are naturally inclined to have a hostility towards other men for there is a limited amount of resources. Because in this state of nature there is not a lot of socialization, when men see other men they fear for their lives and their possessions. Mankind, in turn, creates a state of war, isolation, and
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.
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.
... prominent in Europe during this period. Hobbes felt that this was the only type of government that would that would assure peace. One authority or power would set the laws and everyone in turn would follow them.
...limits are exceeded through the establishment of the currency , which is not perishable. Locke is also convinced that an economy based on private property and unlimited accumulation of wealth generate economic development overall infinitely superior to the pre-bourgeois models : a small piece of land cultivated privately , he notes , makes it a hundred times more than they would if left in the common property.
We will give Hobbes’ view of human nature as he describes it in Chapter 13 of Leviathan. We will then give an argument for placing a clarifying layer above the Hobbesian view in order to account for acts of altruism. 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.”
The final sentence of that passage, “And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short,” seems to sum up what Hobbes has been leading up to in the first twelve chapters of Leviathan: that without a sovereign power, without Leviathan, the natural life of man is simply horrible. It is a life in which people naturally and constantly seek to destroy one another.
Minority right was not well discussed in the early liberalism works. However, it becomes more important when more states had a mix of people of different identities. This paper will first investigate how Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau’s goal to unify people harms the minority. Then, it will compare Burke’s conservatism with their liberalism, and show how Burke’s theory, by embracing the traditions, leaves room for the minority rights. Finally, this paper will discuss how Marx transforms the minority question into the political emancipation of minority, and extends it to the ultimate human emancipation. It will also evaluate the practicability of such ultimate goal.
Hobbes’s initial argument of natural state, in human nature, proves how society is in a constant state of destruction, mentally and physically, if not under control or command. Although Hobbes’s opinion was morally correct, Rousseau believes that all people are born in a state of emptiness, somewhat of a blank state, and it is life experiences that determine their nature, society being a major driving force for people’s ill-will and lack of moral sensibilities. Hobbes, overall, is proven correct because all people need to be directed in order for society to properly function. 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.
Through this examination of ideas, a conclusion may be made concerning the ideal form of government to preside over society today. In his famous writing, “The Leviathan”, Thomas Hobbes explains that the natural condition of mankind is when a society lives together without the rule of a common authority or power; this creates a “dog-eat-dog” world in which the citizens live in a perpetual state of utter chaos and fear. The fears experienced by the citizens are not only of the unequal distribution of the power of others, but also fear of the loss of their own power. In Hobbes’ state of nature there is complete liberty for society in the idea that each member may do whatever he or she pleases without having to worry about infringing upon the rights of the rest of society; in other words, one is allowed to do whatever necessary to pursue their own happiness. However, there is no guarantee of safety and protection from that same power which is granted to every other member of society.... ...
Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.
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
In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.
In Leviathan, Hobbes seems to underestimate the motives of mankind. His pessimistic view of human nature sheds no light on the goods that men do. While human nature may create a sense of personal survival, it does not imply that human nature will lead towards violent behavior. When left to provide for themselves, mankind will work toward a peace that benefits them all. There will always be evil in the world which will disrupt the peace, but in the end the strength of men should triumph.
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.