Political Theories Of Hobbes And Locke

1862 Words 8 Pages
Register to read the introduction… Both are theories that emphasize the importance of consent in the formation of society, though consent is used to two distinct ways. Hobbes proposes, “The right of all sovereigns is derived originally from the consent of every one of those that are to be governed” (Hobbes, 1996, p. 150). In nature, there is no unity among men, only division. Hobbes suggests that there is only unity in representation, which can only be authorized by the people. This requires the sacrifice of the right to complete freedom in order to obtain security and stability, which is worthy trade off according to Hobbes, considering his view on the state of nature. However, once consent is given to a sovereign power, people are no longer involved in political or governmental workings, since all responsibilities are delegated to the sovereign power. This results in a non-representative form of government, which prevents conflict and war that is found in the state of nature through the fear of punishment. This seems to be consistent with Hobbes’ personal political views, being a strong supporter of monarchial rule.
In contrast, Lock stated “Men being, as had been said,
…show more content…
The development of mankind as a selfish being living in a state of war and violently attempting to obtain equality naturally lead Hobbes to conclude that an authoritative power is needed to instill order to chaos. On the other side of the spectrum, Lock molds the state of nature to be a state of peace, and attributing men to Reasonable creatures and consequently creates a representative government where the people hold sovereign power. Essentially, these theories seem are a result of a pessimistic and optimistic framing of nature and

Related Documents