Difference Between Locke And Hobbes

Good Essays
Locke and Hobbes are political philosophers, very important in the development of politics and a great influence for modern thought. The two make reference in their texts to the thought in which man exists without government "state of nature", and the risk of it. On the one hand, Locke talks about the benefits that are to come. He believes that men are by nature social animals. And when referring to the state of nature, he points out already existing examples. Meanwhile, Hobbes is quite more pessimistic. He doesn’t agree that men are not by nature social animals, and that the power of state is the key for society. When referring to the state of nature, he does it in a theoretical way.

In the state of nature, Locke thinks that men, even if
…show more content…
In this state, both refer to men as equals among them. Locke describes nature as a "state of perfect equality, where there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another". Similarly, Hobbes states that "nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of mind and body… “The difference between man and man is not so considerable”. For Hobbes, the time a man spends in a state of nature, it is as if he were in a state of war. Because if two men can not enjoy the same benefits, they become enemies and on the way to their end they try to disappear. Locke also points out the risks by saying that without the law of nature, everyone can execute decisions that lead to a state of war. Both describe entanglements of war existing in the state of nature and emphasize the dangers of …show more content…
Their theories differ when it comes to the extension of the state of war, the more negative Hobbes perspective on the natural state of man and his use of examples. Hobbes sees man as selfish while Locke has another completely different perspective. He thinks of man as someone with an innate morality. These visions are involved in the way of government that each philosopher recommends. Locke believes that the law is a means to comply with the dictates of nature. He believes that government is essential to maintain human nature and wants the state to limit itself to what is essential. While Hobbes believes that the state deserves protection and wants as much power as possible for his Leviathan. He considers the law as a means to fulfill contracts. Hobbes considers the government as a means to counter human nature. The beliefs of these two thinkers are irreconcilable, but they are aware that the form of government proposed in conclusion is pre-social. The present world has apparently adopted a more Hobbesian position, with a more educational state and that judges

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    In this paper I will be assessing Hobbes view of man in a state of nature and why it is not possible to agree with life in the state of nature if one disagrees with the all-powerful sovereign. Due to the many factors associated with the state of nature and the social contract, if one agrees with such it makes it nearly impossible to disagree with the need for a government with limitless powers. I will argue that if one agrees with life in the state of nature, then they must as well agree with Hobbes in regards to the necessity of an all powerful sovereign. One cannot agree with life in the state of nature and disagree with the all powerful sovereign simply because an all powerful sovereign is needed due to the way life functions in the state…

    • 1240 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Locke Vs. Hobbes

    • 899 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Locke believes that the law is a means to comply with the dictates of nature. He believes that government is essential to maintain human nature and wants the state to limit itself to what is essential. While Hobbes believes that the state deserves protection and wants as much power as possible for his Leviathan. He considers the law as a means to fulfill contracts. Hobbes considers the government as a means to counter human nature.…

    • 899 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Human life has long been shaped and susceptible to civil society. John Locke theorizes that man, by nature, is a social animal. Mankind is more apt to gain freedoms, identities, and interests through a civil society, rather than nature. However, another philosopher and writer believed differently; Thomas Hobbes was of the idea that man was not of a societal nature and that society could and would not exist except for the power of a state. Hobbes, in his writings, took on more of a philosophical absolutism approach for his theories on government and men, whereas Locke took a philosophical and biblical constitutionalism approach towards government and human life.…

    • 1322 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Both theorists believe in natural rights and freedoms and how men establish governments in order to secure peace however they differ on the purpose of government. Hobbes believed the purpose of government is to impose law and order to prevent the state of war. Locke believed the purpose of government is to secure natural rights, namely man’s property and liberty. Both refer to a “state of nature” in which man exists without government, and both speak of risks in this state. However, while both speak of the dangers of a state of nature, Hobbes is more pessimistic, whereas Locke speaks of the potential benefits.…

    • 908 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It is due to man’s tendency to compete, act diffident and seek glory in his natural state that this state often leads to war , more so without a common power to keep men in place . One can argue that Hobbes over-emphasizes the dreadfulness of the state of nature to prove that rational individuals are willing to relinquish certain liberties to obtain the security provided by a Commonwealth, be it one with absolute power. His pessimistic view on people in the state of nature is contrary to that of Locke, who believes that subjects are equal in the state of nature not because anyone is capable of killing anyone, rather because no one is subject to any higher…

    • 1217 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    According to Rousseau, men in their natural state have equality and liberty but they lose these when they enter the civil society. Civilization corrupts men. So, the state/government unites them under the general will and brings people into harmony. This paper argues that the role of the state differs for both Locke…

    • 1503 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Locke differs from what the state of nature is; his state of nature is relatively peaceful and a rational one. He believes that men are guided by reason and “…dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man (Locke, chapter 2). In the state of nature the concept of justice and injustice does exist. Every man has the right to defend himself and to punish, if his rights or life is threatened. God gave Adam certain natural right (Life, liberty, and property) which then men inherited (Locke).…

    • 839 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    However, he believed that they could be a difficulty in using the idea of a state of nature because those who employ it project characteristics found only in society upon men in their original condition. As a result of this, the state of nature was simply a hypothesis to him. He went ahead to dismiss Hobbes idea that men were self-seeking and competitive by nature and in the absence of goodness in the state of nature men are naturally evil. Rousseau notes that one of the main problems humans face is that although they want to be free, they also want the advantages of living in society because it is only as a citizen that man can fulfil…

    • 1059 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Hobbes cared about maximizing liberty, defining social justice, and knowing how to divide the limits of the government power. The process of the state of nature is formed by a community and a government. People would view him as a “Psychological egoist” he was over the top with an unrealistic view of human nature. In the laws of nature and the social contract, “Hobbes thinks the state of nature is something we ought to avoid, at any cost except our own self presentation” (Thomas Hobbes). Hobbes believed in a social contract and how it would help the government rule the society.…

    • 1796 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all illustrate different forms of legitimate government based on different key characteristics from varying ideas of what the state of nature would look like. Each author’s government aims to provide solutions to the problems presented in the state of nature. Because of their views on human nature each author envisions a different levels of involvement of the citizens. A balance between power to the government and liberty to the citizens is necessary for a successful social contract and a legitimate government. Hobbes’ government does not give enough liberty to the citizens, while Rousseau’s general will is an unrealistic expectation for human nature to achieve even in a society.…

    • 1668 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays