Hobbes' Perspective on the State of Nature

857 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: John Locke Vs Thomas Hobbes

1. Describe Hobbes ' version of the State of Nature.
English philosopher Thomas Hobbes version of the state of nature is the condition of mankind and their natural sense. He argues that we are by nature equal in body and in mind. These equalities along with other human traits cause everyone to naturally and willingly fight; thus also reacting in a manner to band together in order to protect themselves from one another. Hobbes compared this behavior of the “state of nature” to the civil war.
Hobbes is best known for his theory of political and social order in how we as humans can live amongst one another in peace while also avoiding the fears and dangers of civil conflict. He views the life of man as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish
They both feel that a form of order is necessary to maintain the state of nature. Both also compare in their theory of the state of nature in that human beings have the right to protect him/herself from those that would cause them harm. Hobbes developed the social contract theory that Locke later supported and further interpreted. This social contract was a means to interpret the relationship between the people and the sovereign/state. Both philosophers were supporters of individual equality and freedoms.
The two contrast in that Hobbes theorizes a contract exists between the sovereign and the people, once you agree to the sovereign, he cannot be overthrown and you are at his mercy. He also feels that social order begins with a state of nature. However, Locke feels the government is conditional and can be overthrown if the people are not represented correctly. He argued that without the arrangement of a successful government human being’s would live in the “state of nature.”
Locke and Hobbes also differ because Hobbes feels that the sovereign should be all-powerful and individuals should not rebel against the sovereign. By giving up a few of their freedoms the sovereign can maintain order with the rest of their freedoms. Locke, on the other hand, the government is for the people and if the government fails the people it/they can be overthrown and put in place new officials that will protect citizens

Show More
Related

  • Analysis Of John Locke: The Second Treatise Of Government

    2379 Words  | 5 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    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. 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." On this point, Locke and Hobbes were not in agreement. Locke, consistent with his philosophy, viewed man as naturally moral.

    Read More

  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Theory Of Government

    1064 Words  | 3 Pages

    This is because Hobbes travels a lot, and realize people are born evil. He said people act impulsively without government. Today our government is limited. The trail of tears illustrates a belief in limited government. In the 1820-1840s the United States government forced several tribes of Native Americans to migrate to reservations west of the Mississippi River. Justice was not being equally administered to all degrees of people as Hobbes thought a unlimited government would be. I believe that without government, human would naturally be in a state of war. This is because it is the human nature to desire power. It is shown in everyday lifestyle that we fight to obtain control. For example, people fight over money to gain control. People commit crimes to show that they have some sort of power. Without government, the world would be a chaotic place. Therefore I believe that a government is a necessary element for society to control people’s greed over control. On the other hand, in contrast to Hobbes, Locke believes human are born good. I personally agree with Locke that humans are born good but society blinds our innocence and creates a second human nature to desire

    Read More

  • Human Nature as Viewed by Thomas Hobbes and David Hume

    1952 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...

    Read More

  • Equality: Comparing Hobbes and Locke

    2000 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and inalienable equality in the state of nature.... ... middle of paper ... ... Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Thomas Hobbes

    1766 Words  | 4 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Force, Morality and Rights in Thomas Hobbes and John Locke's Social Contract Theories

    1630 Words  | 4 Pages

    The form of government proposed in the theory outlined by John Locke is much less restrictive on the rights of the commonwealth than the theory described by Hobbes, while at the same time providing equal guarantees of protection. Therefore, society today would undoubtedly function best under the ideas of Locke given that we live in a world where freedom is not only expected, but demanded. The absence of freedom, as described by Hobbes, would only create greater struggles for power resulting in the transition of mankind back into the state of nature which we so wish to escape.

    Read More

  • The State of Nature: Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury

    1681 Words  | 4 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Individual Liberty: Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls

    2100 Words  | 5 Pages

    ����������� Thomas Hobbes is an important political and social philosopher. He shares his political philosophy in his work Leviathan. Hobbes begins by describing the state of nature, which is how humans coped with one another prior to the existence of government. He explains that without government, �the weakest has the strength to kill the strongest� (Hobbes 507). People will do whatever it takes to further their own interests and protect their selves; thus, creating a constant war of �every man against every man� (Hobbes 508). His three reasons for people fighting amongst each other prior to government include �competition,� �diffidence,� and �glory� (Hobbes 508). He explains how men fight to take power over other people�s property, to protect them selves, and to achieve fame. He describes life in the state of nature as being �solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short� (Hobbes 508). Hobbes goes on to say that if men can go on to do as they please, there will always be war. To get out of this state of nature, individuals created contracts with each other and began to form a government.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    1044 Words  | 3 Pages

    A state of nature is a hypothetical state of being within a society that defines such a way that particular community behaves within itself. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes proclaimed that, “A state of nature is a state of war.” By this, Hobbes means that every human being, given the absence of government or a contract between other members of a society, would act in a war-like state in which each man would be motivated by desires derived solely with the intention of maximizing his own utility.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government

    3013 Words  | 7 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes And Locke's Theory Of Government

    1460 Words  | 3 Pages

    These differences affect the livelihood and happiness of people. Hobbes wanted a government to prevent chaos and anarchy as he saw all men were selfish after his experience with the Civil War, while Locke wanted a government to protect everyone’s natural rights. Hobbes Monarch with an absolute ruler, Is different than Locke’s idea of a constitutional government. Hobbes absolute ruler theory forced people to behave themselves, and protected them from killing each other, Locke’s constitutional theory protected their lives, their liberty, and their property. These are different because, while Locke agrees with protecting peoples lives such as Hobbes did, he also believed more than just lives should be protected. Another difference between Hobbes and Locke was their belief if power should be limited. Since Hobbes believed in an absolute ruler, and his idea of government formed a Monarchy, the people were to give up their sovereignty for their own good to the absolute ruler. This gave the absolute ruler unlimited power, which prevented the people from over throwing him. While Locke’s idea of government, which was formed to aid the protection of peoples natural rights and not only to protect themselves from one another, limited the power of the government and gave people the right to over throw the government if they failed to protect their natural rights. Their

    Read More

  • Hobbes' View of Human Nature and his Vision of Government

    446 Words  | 1 Pages

    Hobbes believed that human beings naturally desire the power to live well and that they will never be satisfied with the power they have without acquiring more power.  After this, he believes, there usually succeeds a new desire such as fame and glory, ease and sensual pleasure or admiration from others.  He also believed that all people are created equally.  That everyone is equally capable of killing each other because although one man may be stronger than another, the weaker may be compensated for by his intellect or some other individual aspect. Hobbes believed that the nature of humanity leads people to seek power.  He said that when two or more people want the same thing, they become enemies and attempt to destroy each other.  He called this time when men oppose each other war.  He said that there were three basic causes for war, competition, distrust and glory.  In each of these cases, men use violence to invade their enemies territory either for their personal gain, their safety or for glory.  He said that without a common power to unite the people, they would be in a war of every man against every man as long as the will to fight is known.  He believed that this state of war was the natural state of human beings and that harmony among human beings is artificial because it is based on an agreement.  If a group of people had something in common such as a common interest or a common goal, they would not be at war and united they would be more powerful against those who would seek to destroy them.  One thing he noted that was consistent in all men was their interest in self-preservation.

    Read More

  • Similarities Between Hobbes Locke And Rousseau

    560 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

More about Hobbes' Perspective on the State of Nature

Open Document