More handpicked essays just for you.
Thomas Hobbes philosophy on government
Thomas Hobbes philosophy on government
Thomas Hobbes philosophy on government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
How have the different writers we 've looked at so far portrayed leadership? Political theorists have long debated over what the best form of political leadership is. For example, John Locke argued that the people should be the priority and that the state should work to provide for the people, whereas Thomas Hobbes believes that people should submit to absolute government. This paper will be an account of how the great political philosophers, from Socrates to Locke portray political leadership. Socrates believes that the greatest virtue is knowledge and focused on preparing others for leadership. Socrates’ elenchus method is a form of discussion based on asking and answering questions to get people to think critically and engage in philosophical …show more content…
He believes that government is a tool that depends on the consent of the people, and it must not violate the people’s natural right to property (J. Thomas Wren, 2007). Locke states that God gave earth to the entire humanity and everyone has freedom to do whatever they wish without seeking anyone 's permission or depending on anyone else. Locke argues that reason teaches people not to harm their neighbour or their freedom or property, but people should be punished if they break the law (Bingxin Wu. Locke believes that no man should make decisions for another man, even when it comes to political leaders, he states that they should not impose their beliefs on the citizens. Locke and Hobbes differ on opinions when speaking about the right for the citizens to rebel against a corrupt state. Hobbes believes that the government 's existence is to control people and save people from themselves; therefore, people must not rebel against the government under any circumstances. On the other hand, Locke believes that the government’s duty is to the people, thus, if the government becomes corrupt, then people have the right to rebel and overthrow the
In Second Treatise of Government John Locke characterizes the state of nature as one’s ability to live freely and abide solely to the laws of nature. Therefore, there is no such thing as private property, manmade laws, or a monarch. Locke continues to say that property is a communal commodity; where all humans have the right to own and work considering they consume in moderation without being wasteful. Civil and Political Societies are non-existent until one consents to the notion that they will adhere to the laws made by man, abide by the rules within the community, allow the ability to appoint men of power, and interact in the commerce circle for the sake of the populace. Locke goes further to state that this could be null in void if the governing body over extends their power for the gain of absolute rule. Here, Locke opens the conversation to one’s natural right to rebel against the governing body. I personally and whole heartily agree with Locke’s principles, his notion that all human beings have the natural right to freedoms and the authority to question their government on the basis that there civil liberties are being jeopardized.
Socrates put one’s quest for wisdom and the instruction of others above everything else in life. A simple man both in the way he talked and the wealth he owned, he believed that simplicity in whatever one did was the best way of acquiring knowledge and passing it unto others. He is famous for saying that “the unexplained life is not worth living.” He endeavored therefore to break down the arguments of those who talked with a flowery language and boasted of being experts in given subjects (Rhees 30). His aim was to show that the person making a claim on wisdom and knowledge was in fact a confused one whose clarity about a given subject was far from what they claimed. Socrates, in all his simplicity never advanced any theories of his own but rather aimed at bringing out the worst in his interlocutors.
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
Locke drew his ideas from a time where Hobbes did not have the chance to observe the glorious revolution. In uncivilized times, in times before government, Hobbes asserted the existence of continual war with "every man, against every man." At this point, Locke and Hobbes were not in agreement. Locke, consistent with his philosophy, viewed man as naturally moral. Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature.
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
Locke stated that people give up rights in return for benefits and the right to life, liberty, and protection of property. However Hobbes was more harsh and said that as long as you mind your own business and don’t get in the way then you won’t be harmed. John Locke’s beliefs are more apparent in today’s world because of the role of democracy in America and our lives, freedom, and property are not being threatened unless you aren’t fulfilling your role in society. The ideas of Thomas Hobbes show in a government such as a monarchy or a dictatorship which aren’t accepted in modern times. People want to feel safe and when you can’t completely control whether or not you or your possessions are harmed citizens will revolt and change to a different more stable government that works 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.
”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.
While Thomas Hobbes believed that all people were wicked only fighting for their own interests, John Locke believed that person were naturally good and once they were born, they were empty slates which makes them learn from their experiences instead of just being outright evil. John Locke believed in democracy because if a government is like an absolute monarch, it won’t satisfy all the needs of the people and this is why the people have a right to revolt against an abusive government as proven in the American Revolutionary War with King George III or the French Revolutionary War with King Louis XVI who didn 't support their citizen’s ideas and goals. Thomas Hobbes believed that people couldn 't be trusted because they would only fight for their own interests, so an absolute monarch would demand obedience to maintain order, but John Locke States that people can be trusted since all people are naturally good but depending on our experiences as they can still govern themselves. The Purpose of the government, according to John Locke is to protect the individual liberties and rights instead of just keeping law and order because with law and order being put strictly, the people would rebel because it didn’t represent them and then the country will collapse because the king was too
Many philosophers believe that a correct government can make a strong society. However, these philosophers do not agree on what form of government is the most “correct”. English philosopher John Locke believes that Man is inherently moral and that the purpose for government is to grant the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to its people. Another philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, however, holds the belief that mankind is naturally evil and that society needs an absolute central authority to contain this evilness and grant its people with the common protection. Hobbes believes that in a state of nature, when there are no rules and everyone is granted equal
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.
In Locke’s Treatise, the social contract binds citizens to a government which is responsible to its citizenry. If the government fails to represent the interest of its citizens, its citizens have the right and obligation to overthrow it. By contrast, Hobbes’ Leviathan refers to people as subject rather than as citizens, indicating an absence of a reciprocal relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Absolute arbitrary government invests all rights in the sovereign.
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
In this essay I will critically consider Plato’s critique of democracy, focussing on his ‘Craft’ analogy of state leadership against democracy and his argument for philosopher kings. I will argue that Plato’s concerns while valid in some respect are limited as a derogation of democracy in most of its forms. I will then argue that the craft analogy is applicable to direct democracy, but the concerns it raises are easily countered by other forms of democracy that would resolve such problems. Following this I will address the ‘Philosopher kings’ solution suggested by Plato and argue that Plato's proposal of ‘philosopher kings’ would establish a ruling class unfit to and unable to resolve Plato's early concerns raised in the craft analogy, and
What is leadership, and how do we attain the best and most effective leaders? These are questions that are as old as civilization itself. Bass (1974) wrote that, “from its infancy, the study of history has been the study of leaders” (as cited in Wren, 1995, p. 50). Since the study of history in the West is commonly held to begin with Herodotus of ancient Athens, it is not surprising that we should examine the historical views of leadership through the eyes of two titans of Greek thought: Plato and Aristotle.