Compare how the two philosophers Thomas Hobbs and John Locke, in an ideal state, who should have the power and how much power the ruler should have. First, we need to establish what is an ideal state. According to the two of them. Next, compare them both to one another and then try to explain their arguments. By describing their views in our own words.…
John Locke was very different from another great philosopher named Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes believed that the individual was completely helpless and corrupt. He believed that a monarchy was the best form of government. He came up with this because he traveled around the world learning about forms of government to help England’s. John locke, on the other hand, believed only that the whole was better than the self.…
They do not even have the same definition of the common good. Hobbes says that everyone is always in search of power to have a one up on the next person in order to be happy. So a powerful government is only there to protect us and keep us happy. Locke says that political power is the right to promote the common good. Although, Hobbes might agree that it is to promote the common good, however, they have completely different ideas of the definition of the common good.…
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes’ views on humanity differed and it affects their views on government. The Enlightenment started from some key ideas put forth by two English political thinkers of the 1600s, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both men experienced the political turmoil of England early in that century. However, they came to very different conclusions about government and human nature. ” John Locke believed that all people were born free, and equal with the three natural rights of life, liberty and to own property.…
Why is society the way it is today? Most will say, “Because of history.” Yes that is correct, but why? Society is the way it is today because of influential beliefs, and philosophers who portrayed and evolved these beliefs. Of these philosophers, the ones being studied are Niccolo Machiavelli, John Locke, and Karl Marx.…
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.…
In the 17th century, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were philosophers who developed beliefs about the nature of man, which influenced their political philosophies and ideas about the social contract between the people and their government. Thomas Hobbes believed that all humans were naturally wicked and selfish. He stated that without a government there would be war with every man against each other and life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Meanwhile, John Locke believed that all humans were naturally good and could learn from their experiences and improve themselves. He thought as reasonable human beings, humans had the natural ability to govern their own affairs and to look after themselves.…
In conclusion, it is crystal clear that Thomas Hobbes has won this debate. He had John Locke choking amidst his rebuttal which led to him having no option but to end the debate and neglect answering the overbearing question raised by Hobbes. The nature of man is evil, self-centered, and insatiable, if it was not there would be no need for government. In the perfect freedom, peace, equality, and preservation of life that Locke speaks of, men are said to treat one another as they would treat themselves because they are Godlike.…
Although Locke and Hobbes disagreed about the nature of people, both of them made a point of stating that people had inalienable rights. Locke’s whole basis of philosophy was based on the belief that every human had natural rights, rights that existed…
Everything started with the philosophers John Locke and Thomas Hobbes whom had different thoughts. Locke believed that by having a government the people would be allowed to have protection for themselves and their natural rights. If there was no government it would lead to the state of nature. Which Locke and Hobbes both believed it was a horrible idea because there were no rules. Locke viewed people very differently because he believes that each human being is born with a tabula rasa mind, and they develop their learning by being exposed to a variety of things.…
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both share some similarities. They were both philosophers and social contract theorists during the enlightenment. The definition of the State of Nature varies depending on the person. Hobbes says that the state of nature is “war of every man against man.”. He said that people were born greedy and that everyone had the urge to gain more power.…
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Karl Marx were three opposing philosophers during the Enlightenment with their own interpretations on government and people. Hobbes believed society needed an absolute monarchy, “to confer all their power and strength upon one man.” Locke said that human nature had natural rights, and were therefore “not to be under the will or legislative authority of man.” Finally, Marx believed in communism, in which belongings are public. All of the philosophies had their own relation to the social contract, which was introduced by Jean Jacques Rousseau.…
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.…
Many people specifically philosophers would question, “Why we need a state?” or “What kind of state should we have?” This question opened up all the different views and perspective of the three following philosophers, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. They all have different but also very similar views on the state of nature, social contract, laws. Hobbes definition of state of nature is a state of war. Morality doesn’t exists and everyone lives in constant fear.…
The main similarity being what the purpose of the government or political power is, whereas the main difference is how they view the state of nature. Hobbes views the state of nature as a state of war, whereas Locke views it still as a society, but one that lacks true executive powers. Both philosophers made great contributions to political philosophy, but each had their own failures which later political philosophers tried to fix: “The tradition of political theory that begins with Hobbes and Locke, and continues today with Rawls and Habermas and their innumerable followers, has a blind spot, to which several theorists drew attention in the 1990s. That blind spot is the question of nationhood and nationalism” (Alexander-Davey, p.458). Overall, Hobbes and Locke had their differences, but each added something new to the conversation of political philosophy and the state of…