To start off, Both Locke and Hobbes believe in the state of nature, but their views of the state of nature are different. The state of nature is the nature of men before giving up any rights and or liberties to a sovereign power(government). First off, Thomas Hobbes believes that there is not a moral law in the state of nature. Basically, in the state of nature , we are free to do what we please because we lack giving up power to a sovereign entity to hold us accountable as a whole. John Locke disagrees. Locke believes that the laws of nature are to: preserve oneself and to preserve others with the exception that by doing so one would violate oneself. Hobbs holds true to his lack of morals theory in regards to the state of nature by believing
…show more content…
I don’t believe that people in the state of nature are amoral and that there are not any moral codes to follow like Hobbes does. Even if morality doesn’t come from God, it has evolved in our brains as to what actions can harm others and what actions would be detrimental to us to do. For example, a study conducted by James Fallon(A neuroscientists) found that serial killers lack material in proportion to an average human’s part of the brain called the orbital cortex.(NPR, 2010) That means that the orbital cortex plays a role in how we think, and based off of many theories of evolution, our brains evolved from out brain stem outward, thus, there is some type of moral code embedded into our brains from generations past. To follow up my point, “ according to Fallon” the orbital cortex puts a brake on another part of the brain called the amygdala, which is involved with aggression and appetites.” (NPR, 2010). Also, I cannot agree with Hobbes on the issue of the government/sovereign being superior over the people in the social contract. I agree that Locke is right that the sovereign or government is subordinate to the people, especially in a democracy as theoretically the people make up the government so if the people are upset, it is most likely that the system has been corrupted, thus justifying a revolution using Locke’s theory, but not Hobbs. Obviously, the right to revolution is something that I agree in if the governmental system set up in place becomes corrupted. The only way that Hobbs would justify a revolution is if the sovereign/government ceases to function properly, not if the people are just unpleased with the system. In my mind, if the government finds itself to be superior to the people(like Hobbes), it justifies a revolution. If it didn’t justify a revolution, the United States would have been unjustified in becoming a sovereign country. Basically, I disagree with Hobbs on many key issues.
I don’t believe that people in the state of nature are amoral and that there are not any moral codes to follow like Hobbes does. Even if morality doesn’t come from God, it has evolved in our brains as to what actions can harm others and what actions would be detrimental to us to do. For example, a study conducted by James Fallon(A neuroscientists) found that serial killers lack material in proportion to an average human’s part of the brain called the orbital cortex.(NPR, 2010) That means that the orbital cortex plays a role in how we think, and based off of many theories of evolution, our brains evolved from out brain stem outward, thus, there is some type of moral code embedded into our brains from generations past. To follow up my point, “ according to Fallon” the orbital cortex puts a brake on another part of the brain called the amygdala, which is involved with aggression and appetites.” (NPR, 2010). Also, I cannot agree with Hobbes on the issue of the government/sovereign being superior over the people in the social contract. I agree that Locke is right that the sovereign or government is subordinate to the people, especially in a democracy as theoretically the people make up the government so if the people are upset, it is most likely that the system has been corrupted, thus justifying a revolution using Locke’s theory, but not Hobbs. Obviously, the right to revolution is something that I agree in if the governmental system set up in place becomes corrupted. The only way that Hobbs would justify a revolution is if the sovereign/government ceases to function properly, not if the people are just unpleased with the system. In my mind, if the government finds itself to be superior to the people(like Hobbes), it justifies a revolution. If it didn’t justify a revolution, the United States would have been unjustified in becoming a sovereign country. Basically, I disagree with Hobbs on many key issues.