“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
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