motion, as Hobbes describes it, is the motion the mind considers: not necessarily controls, but dependent on a precedent thought. These thoughts stem from imagination and are what Hobbes calls “endeavor” (314). Endeavor in favor of something he calls desire or love, against he calls aversion or hate, and neither he considers contempt or immobility. Man, according to Hobbes, is driven by their endeavors. This is an essential part of man for Hobbes, he compares its presence in man to that of fear and sense. Therefore, the state of man is that he will only act in accordance with his endeavors with no moral limitations.
Locke describes the state of men in nature the “state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions …show more content…
Joining society in Locke still requires relinquishing rights, the right to execute judgement specifically, however Locke holds that man cannot be stripped of his right to life, liberty, and property (374). This difference gives less totalitarian authority to Locke’s society. However, accused violations of those maintained rights are left to the judgement of the Body Politic, which makes its decisions by majority rule of all those in the society (376). The authority of this body comes from the understanding of equality among and within man: the law of nature. This body then creates the government by determining who will hold their power, which results in the formation of a democracy, oligarchy, or …show more content…
Hobbes’ philosophy had an uphill battle to convince the hearts and minds of the people of his time, as it was: starkly areligious, gave unlimited authority to the government, only protected the right to life, and claimed that man was so driven by his own interests that he could only act morally when laws were imposed upon him. Despite the ease of accepting Locke’s conclusions, I think that Hobbes’ reasoning is stronger and has held up better under the test of time. Locke’s dependence on the Christian God and morals were surely appreciated at his time, but are less so now and cannot be the basis of a strong conclusion. Hobbes’ argument isn’t completely areligious, but it certainly doesn’t depend on the existence of a specific God. Hobbes’ provides a mechanism for the reasons man acts in his own interest, and while I don’t completely agree that is the case, it provides a more convincing reason for man to move away from the state than Locke gives. When thinking through their philosophies, there are plenty of historical cases of wars, oppression, greed, that put a lot of doubt into Locke’s assertion of an innate moral law that guides man; it seems that through a historical lens, Hobbes’ self-interested man makes a more convincing
Locke describes the state of men in nature the “state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions …show more content…
Joining society in Locke still requires relinquishing rights, the right to execute judgement specifically, however Locke holds that man cannot be stripped of his right to life, liberty, and property (374). This difference gives less totalitarian authority to Locke’s society. However, accused violations of those maintained rights are left to the judgement of the Body Politic, which makes its decisions by majority rule of all those in the society (376). The authority of this body comes from the understanding of equality among and within man: the law of nature. This body then creates the government by determining who will hold their power, which results in the formation of a democracy, oligarchy, or …show more content…
Hobbes’ philosophy had an uphill battle to convince the hearts and minds of the people of his time, as it was: starkly areligious, gave unlimited authority to the government, only protected the right to life, and claimed that man was so driven by his own interests that he could only act morally when laws were imposed upon him. Despite the ease of accepting Locke’s conclusions, I think that Hobbes’ reasoning is stronger and has held up better under the test of time. Locke’s dependence on the Christian God and morals were surely appreciated at his time, but are less so now and cannot be the basis of a strong conclusion. Hobbes’ argument isn’t completely areligious, but it certainly doesn’t depend on the existence of a specific God. Hobbes’ provides a mechanism for the reasons man acts in his own interest, and while I don’t completely agree that is the case, it provides a more convincing reason for man to move away from the state than Locke gives. When thinking through their philosophies, there are plenty of historical cases of wars, oppression, greed, that put a lot of doubt into Locke’s assertion of an innate moral law that guides man; it seems that through a historical lens, Hobbes’ self-interested man makes a more convincing