More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on thomas hobbes political philosophy
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke Political theory
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke Political theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There is a diverse amount of themes that could be compared in Republic by Plato and Leviathan by Hobbes. Through these books the two authors each construct a system in which their ideal state can thrive. Both writers agree that government is necessary for the good of the people, however what that government entails drastically differs. Their images of a utopian society are largely based on their perception of human beings. Seeing as how their views on human nature are quite opposite from the other’s, it is understandable that their political theories have many dissimilarities. Broadly speaking, the main reason for their contrasting states is that Plato believes humans are inherently good, whereas Hobbes holds a considerably more negative stance …show more content…
Therefore, their ideal systems of government have little in common in regards to how they operate. Although, one similarity that the two political theories do have is the critical need for some type of organization of the state. Both writers clearly recognize that society cannot exist without any government at all. (both realize that without a hierarchy for plato…. And for hobbes…. ) Moreover, both Plato and Hobbes go on to propose that a strong figure of authority is necessary to maintain control within a state. Their utopias also agree in the fact that if individuals obtain more than just their basic needs of life, disorder in the society would arise. Since both agree that people tend to naturally deviate towards greed, they both acknowledge the need for a ruling body that holds power over the rest of its citizens. However, the process of developing an ideal figure of authority, differ in various …show more content…
In Plato’s reasoning he explains that everyone is born with innate qualifications that make them more fit than others for a certain occupation. He suggests that in this way each person’s function will be completed thoroughly. The same theory applies when deciding how the city with be ruled. Only people who possess superior traits will have the power to rule. These people will pertain to the highest ranking class of the state called the guardian class. Plato through Socrates, states: “philosophy, and spirit, speed, and strength as well, must all be combined in the nature of anyone who is going to be a really fine and good guardian of our city” (Plato, 376c, p56). The members of this class will hold the power to legislate and enforce laws, thus making them superior to all other members of the state. Hobbes’ idea of who should be the ruling figure of the state is radically different. He states: “nature hath made man so equal in the faculties of body and mind as 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” (Hobbes, I-1, p74). This reveals Hobbes’ belief that all men are no different from each other, but rather it is each man’s appetites and aversions that differ. On the grounds that he considers all men to be equal, he does not find it
Plato firmly believed that only a select few should rule. This idea stems from his view that people are unequal in essence, as some truly enlightened individuals are able to understand justice and good whereas others could only see the suggestion of the phenomenas. He asserted that many people were
Machiavelli divides all states into principalities and republics, principalities are governed by a solitary figure and republics are ruled by a group of people. With Hobbes’ Leviathan, a new model for governing a territory was introduced that can no longer be equally divided into Machiavelli's two state categories. Hobbes combines the concepts of governing principalities and republics into a new type of political thought that is similar to and different from Machiavelli. Hobbes, unlike Machiavelli, is on the side of the people and not the armed prophets. Hobbes believes that the function of society is not just merely living, but to have a safe and comfortable life.
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.
The social contract theory was a political foundation that underlined the distinct forms of government. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke mention the formation of governments, the main key to form a successful government is through consent such as voting, joining a military, or being allowed to be ruled by a sovereign. The contrasting ideologies by both theorists differ in human nature, Hobbes believed that man is not a social animal while John Locke opposed to this idea and stated that by nature man was a social animal. The distinction that both portrayed in the role of the government in a man's life and the perspective on the state of nature were argued in the following texts, Leviathan and Second Treatise of Government. Society consents to a government because they become aware of the idea that without an established institution the preservation of their life and rights would be in a critical condition.
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.
In Plato' "ideal" model of a city; he chose an aristocratic form of government, describing it as the rule of the most strong, wise and intelligent. In his system people are robbed of their basic rights to live as a primitive human being. People had no right to choose what they want to be after they are born; their occupation is chosen for them by the "philosopher king." He chooses one's job after assessing one's talent in a variety of areas. ...
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
Hobbes explanation of the state and the sovereign arises from what he calls “the State of Nature”. The State of Nature is the absence of political authority. There is no ruler, no laws and Hobbes believes that this is the natural condition of humanity (Hobbes 1839-45, 72). In the State of Nature there is equality. By this, Hobbes means, that there is a rough equality of power. This is because anyone has the power to kill anyone (Hobbes 1839-45, 71). Hobbes argues that the State of Nature is a violent, continuous war between every person. He claims that the State of nature is a state of w...
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,
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed theories on human nature and how men govern themselves. With the passing of time, political views on the philosophy of government gradually changed. Despite their differences, Hobbes and Rousseau, both became two of the most influential political theorists in the world. Their ideas and philosophies spread all over the world influencing the creation of many new governments. These theorists all recognize that people develop a social contract within their society, but have differing views on what exactly the social contract is and how it is established. By way of the differing versions of the social contract Hobbes and Rousseau agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for a society’s protection and emphasizing the government’s definite responsibilities to its citizens.
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.
Hobbes view of human nature lead him to develop his vision of an ideal government. He believed that a common power was required to keep men united. This power would work to maintain the artificial harmony among the people as well as protect them from foreign enemies.
Plato’s thoughts about power and reason are much different than Aristotle. Plato looked at the meaning of justice and different types of governments. Plato looked into four different types of governments
Plato supposed that people exhibit the same features, and perform the same functions that city-states do. Applying the analogy in this way presumes that each of us, like the state, is a complex whole made up of several distinct parts, each of which has its own proper role. But Plato argued that there is evidence of this in our everyday experience. When faced with choices about what to do, we commonly feel the tug of many different impulses drawing us in different directions all at once, and the most natural explanation for this situ...
Hobbes and Machiavelli both had revolutionary ideas about government and the essence of Man. Hobbes grew up in England, and had ideas concerning a freer type of government. His main work was ?Leviathan?. Machiavelli was raised in Italy, and had other ideas. Machiavelli focused on how a prince should act in governing his country. Machiavelli?s main work was entitled ?The Prince?. Ironically, neither Machiavelli nor Hobbes suggests a total democracy or a republic, like we use today. As much as Machiavelli and Hobbes are considered great philosophers, the modern government of the United States has proved to be the best.