Locke Vs Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two influential philosophers who discussed their different views on the state of nature and natural rights. For them and other thinkers, natural rights are rights that people have without any action by the government. For example, the right to liberty or the right to life are often argued to be natural rights. They both argued that even though natural rights do not have a clear philosophical foundation, they were granted by God. Also, on the state of nature, which is a hypothetical situation where humanity is living without the existence of any government, they argue for natural rights. According to Hobbes, the government may be seen as a great creature because its main purpose is the protection of people. Therefore, for him, humanity was born into the state of nature where there is no any government that make legal decision, there are no letters and arts, only a “war of all against all”. In that situation, everybody has the same right to …show more content…
Natural man is not motivated by love or greed of material goods. In other words, a real state of nature in the Rousseau’s mind is when people live together in peace and harmony because he assumes that would be enough resources for people who survive without conflict or war. Rousseau calls pre-political man to the state of nature presented by Hobbes and Locke. According to Rousseau, pre-political man has yet to form a government, but has been degraded from the natural state by the goals of acquisition of wealth and property. Ultimately, mankind enters into a civil society leaving its nature state when we move from the goal of self-preservation to the goal of acquaint wealth and property. Then, when this happens, mankind becomes corrupted by envy and motivated by