Compare And Contrast Marx And Thomas Hobbes

1023 Words 4 Pages
The world is structured to be of many components and ideas where humans dwell on such premises. Without each other, the act of living would be much harder to suffice and rather pointless. In the light of a notion, we don’t need each other for the sake of competition, but for the sake of peace and minimal chaos within society. If everyone in the world were to compete against each other, society would still be paralyzed in the prehistoric era, where civilization barely got the chance to start itself. But before a viable civilization is to be defined, the government must be subjected into consideration as a working force for peace. Whether it be by a monarchy, or a people’s republic, the outcome must end with peace of man. The Lockean theory has the principles and understanding of what is necessary for man to evolve into that peace whereas the other three great philosophical thinkers, Thomas Hobbes, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Karl Marx, exemplify ideas accompanied by shortcomings and the downfall of man. Though evil might persist within the living world, men are not born as so. John Locke believed that humans are inherently good by nature, cooperative, …show more content…
He perceived that man is naturally competitive, in a condition of war and thought people were nasty, brutish, and short-tempered. Their natural passion is the fear of death, which inclines men to peace. Because he assumes that men are inherently evil, he states that the people should be ruled by an absolute government, that it’s necessary to protect people from each other. With this type of government, there would actually be more chaos within the groups of the governed. If they are naturally competitive, why would they choose to act as a subordinate of the ruler? That would also violate the the natural laws of equality. There will inevitably be more protests and revolutions against the authoritarian government because of the natural push towards

Related Documents