There is a lot to take in when dissecting all portions of these writings. I'll start with the concept I found most interesting and what I believe both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke seemed to share similar perspectives on. The laws of nature is a delicate concept to understand, and placed many things in perspective for me as I read these chapters. If I understood correctly, in Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes expresses there are two laws of nature. The right of nature, as the liberty for an individual to protect their right to life itself, and based upon the person's own reasoning and judgement, to do as that individual pleases to do with their own life. The law of nature is the governing rule which one must oblige in order to protect the right of nature. I am blown away by the complexity of Hobbes' description of these natures. For instance, he writes every man has the right to everything without limitations. That right of nature encompasses peace, and peace being such a profound right, by the law of nature, one may use violence or war, in order to protect that right. Going back to the right of man to everything without limitations, it seems like a recipe for total chaos, or at least that was my first thought. This thought was quickly addressed by Hobbes, when he presented the law of men/gospel, which we know as, "do unto others as you would have them do unto …show more content…
Instead of rules and laws among men, Locke presents a state of nature. This state is described as a government holding political power responsible for the laws of the land and the protection of freedoms, foreign and domestic, resulting in the betterment of the public. This perspective still is dependent upon the law of nature, which Locke depicts as man's freedom to rule over their lives, property, and relationships, as they see fit as long as it does not interfere with the will of another man's equivalent freedom or
The American ideals in regards to freedom along with other human rights are not unique to the United States. In fact many of these freedoms and other rights found within the American declaration of independence were in fact copied from the Englishmen John Locke who wrote extensively on the subject nearly a century before the declaration even came into existence. John Locke was many things throughout his life mainly a philosopher and was also heavily involved in politics and psychology. This is evident throughout Locke’s writings. One of his most renowned works is his Second Treatise of Civil Government in which he discusses his views in regard to the state of nature, why people form governments and the benefits they gain from doing so, along with analyzing the extent of parliament’s
The foremost aspects to consider from the Leviathan are Hobbes’s views on human nature, what the state of nature consists of, and what role morality plays. Hobbes assumes, taking the position of a scientist, that humans are “bodies in motion.” In other words, simple mechanical existences motivated solely to gain sati...
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.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) were both prominent philosophers during the 17th Century. They were both known as natural law theorists and social contract theorists. Hobbes is widely known for his writing of the “Leviathan” and John Locke is famous for his writing of the book, “Two Treatises of Government.” Both men wrote about natural law, positive law, and social contract. Positive Law is “statutory man-made law, as compared to "natural law" which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles, "God's law," and/or derived from nature and reason.” (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Positive+Law). Although Hobbes’ and Locke shared some ideas, overall their conclusions were different. In general, Hobbes believed that man is evil, whereas Locke believed that man is inherently good. This in turn led to their differences in their theories of positive law and social contract. Locke’s view is more consistent with our present state of government in most places around the world today.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke grew up around the same time, so naturally they must have many similarities, but the environment they grew up in resulted in many differences as well. Hobbes grew up during the English Civil War, which shaped his ideas while Locke lived through the Revolution of 1688 which was when a king was overthrown for being unjust and that helped form his ideas. Hobbes and Locke both said that the state of nature is bad and some order is always needed. The difference between their beliefs is the type of government that should be in place to maintain order that is needed to manage stable lives.
Born in Malmesbury, England, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was a philosopher and political theorist widely renowned for his 1651 book Leviathan. He was educated at Oxford, lived for a time in Paris and there met philosopher Rene ́ Descartes, traveled to Italy and met Galileo, and served as a tutor of Charles II. Leviathan brings together parts of Hobbes’s previously published writings, including the 1642 Latin work De Cive and the 1640 Elements of Law, Natural and Political. Hobbes was also author
Socrates and Thomas Hobbes, two independent philosophers of two independent eras, both had divergent beliefs of government and citizen. Socrates’ whole life was persuading and disagreeing with common beliefs and questioning everything and everyone - except his own death since he had no comprehension of “self-preservation.” Hobbes, however, believed people had to give up the right to question in order for the sovereign to protect the commonwealth. The life and death of Socrates contradicts Thomas Hobbes’s view of self-preservation because ultimately, Socrates defied protecting himself and died in the hands of his own government. Although Socrates might argue that his death was justified because he failed to persuade the Athenian government for
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.
Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and inalienable equality in the state of nature. “A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another. ”2 Locke suggests that a civil government has an obligation to treat its citizens equally because humans are equal in the state of nature, and it would be both morally wrong and difficult to find willing subjects if they are denied equality under the government’s rules. authority.
John Locke explains the state of nature as a state of equality in which no one has power over another, and all are free to do as they please. He notes, however, that this liberty does not equal license to abuse others, and that natural law exists even in the state of nature. Each individual in the state of nature has the power to execute natural laws, which are universal.
2. What is the difference between Hobbes’ and Locke’s conception of the state of nature, and how does it affect each theorist’s version of the social contract?
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.
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
According to Locke, in the state of nature, it was always the law of nature that controlled all men. And
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.