John Locke's Second Treatise And Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

Improved Essays
In John Locke’s Second Treatise and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, both authors introduce concepts of perfect societies built upon the initial state of nature for the purpose of ultimately escaping that state to enter a state of civility and peace. The state of nature is one governed by natural laws that each individual understands through their innate sense of reasoning. Hobbes condemns that state because he contends that in the state of nature, there is no property, which propagates fear and death because of a lack of common authority to settle matters on disagreements concerning things like ownership and retributions. Unlike Hobbes, Locke reasons that individuals can actually come into possessions in the state of nature and employs his theory …show more content…
In the Leviathan, Hobbes introduces the state of nature as one locked in fear and uncertainty because the resources that the earth provides are mutually attainable. In this state of nature, Hobbes explains that there is only possession but no ownership because one can only possess an item for as long as their neighbor doesn’t desire the item enough to exact force and take it for themselves. To survive, people acquire many of those resources but without a common authority there is no way to establish a sense of property, or permanent possession. On a common earth, Hobbes reasons that the resources of the earth belong to everyone, therefore no one really has a secure personal right to anything. To escape from that world of uncertainties, Hobbes claims that the contract is the only path towards peace. The contract is an agreement that both parties sacrifice some natural rights towards a common resolution; however, that cannot be sustained without an enforcing body. For example, I cannot kill someone for their bread and they cannot kill me for my bread so that we both enjoy the benefits of security, food, and favor from the common

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    “The right of nature is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life.”-Thomas Hobbes… Two strong-minded social contract theorists concluded two different outlooks on several different topics, one main topic being the state of nature. John Locke feels as if peace is and should be the norm, we can and should be able to live in peace without having to worry about someone fondling with our property or belongings. Thomas Hobbes, on the other hand, feels like everyone isn’t going to agree that certain things are good or bad because that’s based on opinion. However, yes men can live together in peace but only with the use of a common master with a higher…

    • 1022 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes believes that without a ruler society will live in the State of Nature. This to Hobbes meant living in an almost civil war like society. Locke believed that in the state of nature people were good and honest, conflicts were resolved peacefully and justly. Locke believed that peace should be the status quo, and we can remain living this way as long as we respect each other. Hobbes believed that people can only live in peace when they turn over all rights to a sovereign.…

    • 1195 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    The beginning of state of nature meaning war. Hobbes wants the society to work together meaning giving some rights up in exchange for protection. “This equality of ability produces equality of hope for the attaining of our goals” (Thomas Hobbes). For example, if two people want something they both can’t enjoy or use then they quickly become enemies. Hobbes view, “A law of nature is a command or general rule, discovered by reason, which forbids a man to do anything that is destructive of his life or takes away his means for preserving his life, and forbids him to omit anything by which he thinks his life can best be preserved” (Leviathan, Chapter 14).…

    • 1796 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He would be at this conclusion because he does not think humans should live in equality. He believes that humans should strive for peace above all things but war is nessesary when lives are threatened. Hobbes does claim that humans in the state of nature are all equals. The state of nature is what Hobbes decribes as a place without any government and caotic. Naturally men exist in a state of equality, where everyone is for themselves.…

    • 729 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It is a state of anarchy where there is completely no order or rules that guide human behavior. There are no laws to govern us and we are guided by our own instincts on what is right and wrong. In addition to the above points, Hobbes is the opponent of the state of nature. His opinion is that man could not survive in the state of nature - therefore there is the need of creating a State, by people engaging in social contract and the necessity of people giving up their rights to the Sovereign. On the other hand, Locke is more liberal when talking about the state of nature.…

    • 736 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    He is a materialist, so he does not believe in any form of a higher, divine being. Where other philosophers might argue that such a God-like figure instills a quality of goodness and morality in us at birth, Hobbes believes differently. There is no greatest good. He says that we can never be satisfied and that we naturally want to obtain the greatest possible amount of power. It is this attribute of selfishness that makes the state of nature so dangerous.…

    • 1117 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Wollstonecraft believes that they are slaves to the oppressive monarchy because they have no rights to anything, not even their own lives. People deserve to practice their natural rights. Wollstonecraft writes, “ The only security that nature authorizes and reason sanctions is, the right a man has to enjoy the acquisitions which his talents and industry have acquired; and to bequeath them to whom he chooses” (Wollstonecraft 5). The…

    • 1365 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved 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
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill proceeds by stating the powers of God are limited. Mill suggests that God works within limitations that He, himself, set forth in the form of nature. Gravity, inertia, etc are natural laws that are to always be abided. A natural disaster is an effect of a natural cause. In this case, we cannot define this action as an evil that God creates or necessarily warrants.…

    • 983 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    But Rousseau thinks there is no difference to primitive society when the minority yield to the majority as this is not democracy. There is no point to argue which party should be prioritized. However, I still believe that renewing the contract can help encourage multiculturalism. On one hand, renewing allows islams to continue to stay; on the other, it allows local student to try different food. People are willing to embrace different culture when they have experienced how special it is.…

    • 1748 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays