Introduction
‘During and after the English Revolution (1642-88), different English thinkers reacted differently toward the revolution, based on their own life experience and philosophical outlook’. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke strongly argued distinct notions of political power. One absolute kinship, the other a democratic republic. In this essay it will firstly state and discuss the relation between state and sovereign according to Thomas Hobbes. In doing so Thomas Hobbes ideas will then be compared to John Locke’s. Initially their similarities, followed by the differences. Concluding with a summary of some main points.
I. Thomas Hobbes
Both political philosophers, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) have similar ideas in …show more content…
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both agree that subjects shall summit to a sovereign their right and obligations such as, judgment and consequences. It can be due to both having the notion that their ideal ruler(s) should have some sort of authority towards their men. In order to guide them to peace. Also by doing this their sovereign(s) can be portrayed as superior and subject’s inferior by having more rights and entitlement than them. In other words, it creates some hierarchical system where both Hobbes and Locke ideal ruler(s) authorize all that occurs within society and subjects shall be obedient with minimal input. It can be due to no longer obtaining the right to command. For example, the right to tell others what is virtue and vice. Whatever they command must be fully obedient and if disobedient can lead to punishments. John Locke and Hobbes also agree that citizens may revolt against authority under some conditions. Hobbes, citizen is permitted to only if only their live it at risk. In determining whether their live is at risk and their ruler cannot protect them no more, it is then by the decision that their able to revolt against authority. However, only if their decision is supported by the majority. In John Locke theory, citizens are able to rebel against their government by the breach of contract: inability to protect their natural right of property. These notions of how citizens of a state can revolt against authority differ. Other differences appear apparent with the limitations of the ruler(s) and therefore the authority that the head is permitted to
‘During and after the English Revolution (1642-88), different English thinkers reacted differently toward the revolution, based on their own life experience and philosophical outlook’. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke strongly argued distinct notions of political power. One absolute kinship, the other a democratic republic. In this essay it will firstly state and discuss the relation between state and sovereign according to Thomas Hobbes. In doing so Thomas Hobbes ideas will then be compared to John Locke’s. Initially their similarities, followed by the differences. Concluding with a summary of some main points.
I. Thomas Hobbes
Both political philosophers, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) have similar ideas in …show more content…
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both agree that subjects shall summit to a sovereign their right and obligations such as, judgment and consequences. It can be due to both having the notion that their ideal ruler(s) should have some sort of authority towards their men. In order to guide them to peace. Also by doing this their sovereign(s) can be portrayed as superior and subject’s inferior by having more rights and entitlement than them. In other words, it creates some hierarchical system where both Hobbes and Locke ideal ruler(s) authorize all that occurs within society and subjects shall be obedient with minimal input. It can be due to no longer obtaining the right to command. For example, the right to tell others what is virtue and vice. Whatever they command must be fully obedient and if disobedient can lead to punishments. John Locke and Hobbes also agree that citizens may revolt against authority under some conditions. Hobbes, citizen is permitted to only if only their live it at risk. In determining whether their live is at risk and their ruler cannot protect them no more, it is then by the decision that their able to revolt against authority. However, only if their decision is supported by the majority. In John Locke theory, citizens are able to rebel against their government by the breach of contract: inability to protect their natural right of property. These notions of how citizens of a state can revolt against authority differ. Other differences appear apparent with the limitations of the ruler(s) and therefore the authority that the head is permitted to