Locke Vs Hobbes

Political theories during the seventeen century, such as nature of the government and power were debated and even experimented. In the seventh century, England had two dominant viewpoints, which were best explained by the writing of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Locke and Hobbes were both social contract theorists and natural law theorists. The first model that was debated between Hobbes and Locke was the state of nature.

Hobbes had a bit negative view about the state of nature. Hobbes believed that man is naturally selfish, self-interested and always trying achieve power. According to him, any man’s basic interest was self-prevention. In the state of nature Hobbes pictures that we are in a constant war, as he quotes” Whatsoever, therefore, is consequent to a time of War, where every man is enemy to every man; [there is]…continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” ( Hobbes on “Of the Natural Condition of Mankind). This clearly states that as we are in the state war, people have total freedom to do whatever they wish. There was no place for right or wrong and justice or injustice, there were no laws as there was no common power due to the war. However, this concept started to raise many problems and Hobbes decided to get out …show more content…
But Recall that Hobbes state of nature was more towards the negative side than Locker, and there the difference take place. The state war has a more negative perspective of Hobbes. Hobbes support sovereign and Locke supports the establishment of authorities that is subjected to people. In the end, Locke has shown more bright sides to provide liberty in society in general and it more positive than Hobbes views. There the best kind of government for today’s date could be Locks government, where justices are provided and rights are