Comparing Thomas Hobbes And John Locke

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 …show more content…
Thomas Hobbes’s main concern has been just he didn’t understand how humans can live together in peace and avoid the violence and living in fear of civil conflict. He felt like we needed one person or a group of people in charge of deciding the correct decisions for every social and political issue that arises. Whereas John Locke just felt like we were all born the same, from the same species so there’s no reason why anyone should or feel better then or over anyone else. And as long as the rights’ are in place, which protects everyone’s lives, possessions and so forth then we can all be accountable for ourselves. Of course in the times, we live in now Hobbes logic works better, I feel because nowadays people are very disrespectful and inconsiderate of people’s lives and possessions, even with a president, governor, and police officials so imagine what life would be like without them. Yes, Locke is correct at believing that people should have morals and be able to conduct themselves accordingly; yet, the idea that every man respects the next man 's property without having to say anything is just not reasonable or plausible for this day and age. Although living in John Locke’s perfect self-ruled, equality world would be nice, for the society and day and age we live in now Hobbes ideas work better for

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Even though he did not define human nature in any way, Confucius said that all human beings are equal. Confucius’ theory would be valid if he had explained more about his beliefs and included everyone in them. The Analects are based on humanism, not metaphysics. Confucius was more worried about the basic human welfare and not so much the ultimate nature of the world. He was concerned on a better government that would help the well-being of the common people that would bring peace among the citizens.…

    • 751 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Locke and Hobbes were really opposites and the way they were raised gave them these theories. Hobbes theory was too negative about man and was to bias about how a leader is the only way to peace and how freedom of speech will get you killed. Hobbes theory was just not functional in today’s world compared to Locke’s and even back then. Overall leaving Locke’s theory as the better and most reasonable…

    • 724 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    No morality exists. Everyone lives in constant fear. Because of this fear, no one is really free. However, in the state of nature everyone has the right to everything because there is no limit to natural rights. His theory that common security should be favored and that a bit of individual liberty should be sacrificed by each person to achieve it is an inaccurate policy.…

    • 908 Words
    • 4 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
  • Superior Essays

    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. If this was truly an adequate representation of human nature and state of nature, mankind would know how to mitigate issues on an individual position without the interference of a government.…

    • 987 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He goes into more depth about how people really act when they are put into an environment with no government. Locke seems to have the mindset of a perfect world and that everyone will follow the rules because they know in order to make this work they need to follow a natural law. It seems like a good and pleasant life where men mostly keep their obligations and promises, but as we know, not all humans cooperate. Many times people are going to want to do what they want and Hobbes goes more into detail with the reality of the nature. In Hobbes view, it’s the complete opposite.…

    • 761 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Government functions should be performed by all of the people, not by representatives, as necessary to meet specific needs. Lockes’ state of nature has both the good and bad aspects of Hobbes and Rousseau. People had complete freedom to do as they wanted, as Rousseau believed, but exercising that freedom sometimes created conflict between people as Hobbes believed. Locke believed that people create governments to protect the rights of all the people without unnecessarily restricting the rights of individuals. Lockes’ view is more accurate because humans do have the flaws of Hobbes and the aspirations of Rousseau.…

    • 863 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Locke believed peace is the norm, and should be the norm. We can and should live together in peace by refraining from molesting each other’s property and persons, and for the most part we do. While Hobbes believed men cannot know good and evil, and in consequence can only live in peace together by subjection to the absolute power of a common master, and therefore there can be no peace between kings. Peace between states is merely war by other means. Furthermore, the stand on the social contract is different in Locke and Hobbes’ philosophies.…

    • 992 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Thus if one agrees with the condition of life in the state of nature, they would also come to the conclusion that a powerful person is needed in order to ensure peace and just civilization. It is also evident that humans in the state of nature are aggressive and selfish, creating a need for a sovereign who can lead them to peace. Hobbes states, “Where there is no common power, there is no law, no injustice” (Bailey and Martin, 181), so if there is no injustice there is no civilization. This means a powerful leader is required in order to create laws and mold what is unjust and just, allowing for peace, civilization and less chaos. Due to the conditions of the state of nature, man will consent to this power, as all human’s desire self-preservation, thus making an all powerful sovereign the proper solution.…

    • 1240 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Though overall, they mostly make the same points --that men are created equal, endowed with natural rights, and echange these rights for inclusion in society-- they are opposed in their views of the nature of man on an individual level. Hobbes is much more cynical, supposing that man is always out for his best interest, even if it means the harm of his neighbor; and John Locke takes the more righteous view of mankind. Which philosopher hit closer to the mark, in relation to actual human behavior, is hard to…

    • 1081 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays