Locke and Hobbes were both social contract theorists, and both natural law theorists but that is just about all they have in common. There are more differences than there are similarities. Locke believed that man was a social animal by nature while Hobbes disagreed and thought man was not a social animal by nature and that society would not exist if it weren’t for the power of the state. Hobbes conclusions are the most different from the other natural law theorists. They both have different opinions on human nature, the state of nature, and many more topics.
Firstly Hobbes spent a large amount of his time dealing with and brainstorming ideas and how society would handle not having any rules to follow. Some of the other theorists just thought that hobbes was crazy and judged him. He thought it would be a good theory for other people to accomplish what was in their own self-interest. No matter what it was, everyone felt the need to compete with each other. Whether it was food, money, shelter, there was always …show more content…
Civil society is a creation of the state. What certain people call civil society is “jostling”, meaningless conflict of selfish ends that a good government should suppress. Locke thinks that both morally and historically civil society precedes the state. Society creates order and grants the state legitimacy.
In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke definitely have more to disagree on with each other than they do to agree on. Their opinions on almost everything are completely different with social nature, humans rights and multiple things with the government. They are both very intelligent social contract theorists and both natural law theorists. Hobbes was infamous for producing numerous similarly results in physics and mathematics. Locke’s considerable importance in political thought is better known than Hobbe’s opinion on
Firstly Hobbes spent a large amount of his time dealing with and brainstorming ideas and how society would handle not having any rules to follow. Some of the other theorists just thought that hobbes was crazy and judged him. He thought it would be a good theory for other people to accomplish what was in their own self-interest. No matter what it was, everyone felt the need to compete with each other. Whether it was food, money, shelter, there was always …show more content…
Civil society is a creation of the state. What certain people call civil society is “jostling”, meaningless conflict of selfish ends that a good government should suppress. Locke thinks that both morally and historically civil society precedes the state. Society creates order and grants the state legitimacy.
In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke definitely have more to disagree on with each other than they do to agree on. Their opinions on almost everything are completely different with social nature, humans rights and multiple things with the government. They are both very intelligent social contract theorists and both natural law theorists. Hobbes was infamous for producing numerous similarly results in physics and mathematics. Locke’s considerable importance in political thought is better known than Hobbe’s opinion on