Locke Vs. Hobbes

Locke and Hobbes are political philosophers, very important in the development of politics and a great influence for modern thought. The two make reference in their texts to the thought in which man exists without government "state of nature", and the risk of it. On the one hand, Locke talks about the benefits that are to come. He believes that men are by nature social animals. And when referring to the state of nature, he points out already existing examples. Meanwhile, Hobbes is quite more pessimistic. He doesn’t agree that men are not by nature social animals, and that the power of state is the key for society. When referring to the state of nature, he does it in a theoretical way.

In the state of nature, Locke thinks that men, even if they had defects, fulfilled their promises and obligations, and were mostly pleasant and peaceful beings. …show more content…
Their theories differ when it comes to the extension of the state of war, the more negative Hobbes perspective on the natural state of man and his use of examples. Hobbes sees man as selfish while Locke has another completely different perspective. He thinks of man as someone with an innate morality. These visions are involved in the way of government that each philosopher recommends. Locke believes that the law is a means to comply with the dictates of nature. He believes that government is essential to maintain human nature and wants the state to limit itself to what is essential. While Hobbes believes that the state deserves protection and wants as much power as possible for his Leviathan. He considers the law as a means to fulfill contracts. Hobbes considers the government as a means to counter human nature. The beliefs of these two thinkers are irreconcilable, but they are aware that the form of government proposed in conclusion is pre-social. The present world has apparently adopted a more