Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and contrast the political thought of Thomas Hobbes
Contrasting John Locke and Thomas Hobbes
Advantages and disadvantages of Hobbes' social contract theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were two English Philosophers, both interested in politics. John Locke was born on August 29, 1632. His father was a lawyer and a small land owner who was on the Parliamentarian side during the Civil War. Locke focused on the standard curriculum of logic, metaphysics, classics and studied medicine. Later in his life he contributed with the development of Liberalism, was appointed as a physician to Shaftesbury’s household, and wrote the Two Treatises of Government. Thomas Hobbes was born on April 5, 1588. HIs father was a quick tempered deputy of a small church. Thomas took a traditional Arts degree, and developed interest in maps. He worked for wealthy and stylish Cavendish family. He was a translator, traveling …show more content…
They both believed that there should be peace, but Hobbes had a few preferences. Locke defines political power as the right to make law for protection and regulation of property. He thinks that these laws are only accepted by people because they are for the public good. Lock also thinks that all men are in original state of nature. A man in this original state is bound by the laws of nature, but otherwise he can do whatever he wants with his possessions. Human beings have an obligation to protect each other’s interests since they are all God’s children, and they are all the same in his eyes. But there is also the obligation to punish the ones that go against God’s will. The people can be punished by compromising their life, liberty, and possessions. He summarizes the differences between the state of nature and the state of war. In the state of nature people live together, governed, but without need of common superior. He states that there is a difference between the war of society and the war of nature.In society war ends with an act of force, while in nature the war isn’t over until the aggressive party offers peace.
Hobbes, on the other hand, believes that perfect commonwealth is ruled by sovereign power to protect the security of commonwealth and is granted absolute authority to ensure common defence. “The Leviathan” strictly argues that civil peace and social unity are most likely achieved by common wealth through social contract. Hobbes prefers wealth over anything else, and he thinks that the wealthier you are the more power you should have. He attempts to prove the necessity of the Leviathan is to keep peace and prevent civil
Above anything else, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan is a creation story and an investigation of human nature. The story begins in a time of chaos and death and through a journey of human development culminates in the establishment of a sustainable and rational society—the commonwealth—led by a sovereign. At a first casual glance, Hobbes’ reasoning of the transformation from the state of nature to the commonwealth is not airtight. A few possible objections can be quickly spotted: the contradictions of natural law with suicide and the civil law to honor even harmful covenants. Hobbes deals with some of these issues and seems to ignore others, but he does address in detail the most significant objection to his theory: the unlimited and unchecked power given to the sovereign. The establishment of the commonwealth culminates in a covenant that grants the sovereign absolute power in enforcing the civil laws of the state, but also guarantees the sovereign’s status as above the law. How does this ensure peace and survival, as is the point of the commonwealth? Hobbes provides many convincing reasons why it would be difficult, counterproductive, and impossible for the sovereign to not be above the law, but in the end, disorder and chaos are worse than any tyranny.
He believes that by transferring all rights to a sovereign, the threat of the state of nature will be diminished. A sovereign elected will be able to represent and protect everyone equally, they are not a ruler of the people, but a representative. The Leviathan differs from a principality and a republic by establishing the institution of the commonwealth through the social contract. To understand how the Leviathan differs from either a principality or a republic, one must look at the principles of each to decipher how Hobbes bears resemblance to and disagrees with Machiavelli. The Leviathan state resembles a principality by giving absolute power to one sovereign.
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...
Although Hobbes is a liberal thinker in some respects his ideas presented in the Leviathan resemble that of a monarchy. Hobbes asserts that the commonwealth can fall under three types of regimes “when the representative is one man, then it is the commonwealth a monarchy... assembly of all... a democracy... assembly of a part only... aristocracy” (L 19.1). However despite this, Hobbes proclaims that monarchic rule is superior since “the private interest is the same with the public” (L19.4). Hobbes posits that people within the state of nature require a Leviathan in order to rein since the state of nature is anarchic. He proposes that by forming a sovereign, the people must trade their innate and natural rights for safety and peace within the state otherwise they would have to submit to a life of “continual fear and danger of [a] violent death...solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” (L13.9). In his work Leviathan, Hobbes presents a system of government that is more of a principality than a republic in nature. However still the Leviathan does include some republican virtues. The following paragraphs will discuss Hobbes’ Leviathan and its resemblance to both republic and principality and finally conclude that the Leviathan does not differ from either governing style.
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.
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
...ideal forms of government. They do interlock in ideas very frequently because they both believe in man having god given equality such as their equally right to compete for resources. They do differ in how they view man’s state of nature because Locke believes that man is a rational and social being who will avoid being in a constant state of war while Hobbes says there is no way to prevent that constant state of war without an absolute sovereign as government. Their theories are both based on scarcity of goods because man’s goal is to obtain these scarce goods to self-preserve. Locke and Hobbes both have ideal forms of government, with Locke believing in a unified government that is maintained by the will of the people and Hobbes absolute sovereign as a government. They attest that these forms of government is what is needed to achieve equality and to preserve man.
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.
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.
Hobbes wrote the Leviathan and divided it into four different sections. For sake of brevity, I will only discuss the second book in, which Hobbes discusses the Commonwealth. He, like Rousseau, holds up the idea that the people of a society are better off by joining the social contract, which all humans are unintentionally apart of. In Book II, Hobbes asserts that there must be some form of leadership, which holds the people together and keeps them from following their natural instincts to gain power and use it in a malicious way. The contract only works because when a government is set up and laws are put in place, there are punishments, which make the citizens afraid to act out of line, thus making a more peaceful place for everyone.
����������� 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.
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
In Leviathan, Hobbes states that a state of war will ensue that will put every man against himself. Eventually the state of war will lead the people towards peace and the only way to achieve the peace is through social contract. Hobbes continues further saying, social peace and civil unity are best achieved through the establishment of a commonwealth through a social contract. This social contract insists that a sovereign power be granted absolute power to protect the commonwealth. This sovereign power will be able to control the powers of human nature because its whole function is to protect the common man.
Hobbes believes that if there is no government then it will lead to a state of war. This is because the people can have different judgement which cause them to not have an agreement on what the government should contain. This means that the people did not view each other as equal and did not have the same morals as Locke would believe in. It can also lead to a state of war if the people don’t have the right to property since it will cause the peace to break. However, the only type of state Hobbes believes in is the Leviathan state that has only one