Compare and Contrast Hobbes’s and Locke’s Views of the State of Nature and the Fundamental Purpose of Political Society. Whose View Is the More Plausible? Why?

1570 Words 7 Pages
Compare and contrast Hobbes’s and Locke’s views of the state of nature and the fundamental purpose of political society. Whose view is the more plausible? Why?

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were both natural law theorists and social contracts theorists. While most natural law theorists have predominantly been of the opinion that humans are social animals by nature, Locke and Hobbes had a different perspective. Their points of view were remarkably different from those perpetuated by other natural law theorists. On the other hand, Locke’s perspective of human nature wasn’t quite as fine as Hobbe’s, although it was much simpler to understand based on its logical foundation. This essay compares and contrast
…show more content…
Further Locke argues that humans escape the state of nature in pursuit of impartial an arbitrator to apply the law of nature and to safeguard an individual’s property. Through entry into the “Political Society,” humans get to part with their ultimate power over the law of nature, and not their life, freedom or property. This means that humans tend to agree with other humans to form a community through unity to ensure they live in a safe and comfortable society. Locke further believes that rights emanate from laws and principles, whole obligations originate from nature, thus creating a form of fiduciary power that is answerable to the people, and that is subject to consent by the majority (Armitage, 2004).
Conversely, Hobbes believes that humans could never live and survive in such institutional system. He believed that society without any sorts of institutions, laws and protection would turn into chaos. His interpretation of human nature would simply not permit any such thing except for a coercive government since without it, humans stand to ignore the laws of nature and instead apply their laws of nature. In Hobbes’ view, persuasion is not enough to compel humans to perform their obligations. Consequently, men would instead transfer their rights of nature and their abilities to regulate themselves to a voluntary or sovereign (self-governing)

Related Documents