The Views Of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke And Karl Marx

Improved Essays
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Karl Marx were three opposing philosophers during the Enlightenment with their own interpretations on government and people. Hobbes believed society needed an absolute monarchy, “to confer all their power and strength upon one man.” Locke said that human nature had natural rights, and were therefore “not to be under the will or legislative authority of man.” Finally, Marx believed in communism, in which belongings are public. All of the philosophies had their own relation to the social contract, which was introduced by Jean Jacques Rousseau.
To begin, Thomas Hobbes was a pessimist towards human nature, strongly believing that humans were born greedy and hostile. To support his perceptions, Hobbes wrote Leviathan,
…show more content…
He was positive towards human nature and believed that humans were born with natural rights. He expressed his beliefs in documents called Two Treaties of Government and The Second Treatise of Civil Government. “Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man…” is a quote from The Second Treatise of Civil Government. It is shown in both documents that Locke believed that governments were formed only to maintain and protect natural rights. He disagreed with the idea of an absolute monarchy, but instead said that limited power was more effective. With that being said, it is society’s right to overthrow the government whenever they have evidence to do so. Locke’s idea of a social contract was very different than Hobbes’. According to Locke, life in the state of nature was filled with “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation.” Locke strongly believed that because people were naturally moral, in a social contract, no competition or harm would be an issue. He thought that without a government to defend the people against those wanting to take advantage of them, soon fear would take over. This would soon cause individuals to have the desire to protect the natural laws, such as life, liberty and property. Locke said that these are given up for payback, in return for …show more content…
According to Marx, communism was the belief that property belongs to everyone and the government gives society needs only when they are truly necessary. He stood for this philosophy and wrote down his beliefs in his well-known work, The Communist Manifesto. The document stated “the world will be for the common people,” meaning that with a communist society, everyone will be treated equally and fairly. For his social contract, Marx despised capitalism because it thought it only helped a small amount, and the rest were left in

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The point of a government is to protect its people. Locke believed that if a government acts out of line and in their own self-interest, the people who are under its control should rebel against them and then construct a new government. He thought that man was able to govern themselves since they naturally were unselfish. Thomas Hobbes was another English philosopher who had pessimistic views that were a little different than Locke’s.…

    • 849 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Marx is a socialist political theorist who brought revolutionary change and Locke is a liberal political philosopher. Marx critiques Locke's liberal theories such as the state of nature, private property, labor, money, and slavery. In Locke's state of nature, all men had natural rights to be equal and free without anyone placing harm on his life, liberty, and property. Marx believed that liberalism instead of providing equality among citizens it was promoting inequality. When Marx critiques Locke's liberalist theories he proves some contradictions that Locke was against.…

    • 1870 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Jeremy Bentham supported this notion by stating government cannot meet all the demands placed by the doctrine of natural rights. He also estimated that it will suppress the people’s freedom as well as cause complications and tension which will prevent the government from serving its purpose. Thus, Bentham completely rejects the methods and notion of natural rights, stating legislation should be initiated only through the assessment of “the impact of a given law on the greatest happiness for the greatest number”. He expresses utilitarianism does not allow hasty revolution and rebellion from the people, unlike how natural rights might. Bentham asserts rights should be established directly from the law…

    • 1580 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Without states, laws, and orders, life is solitary, poor, nasty, and brutish. He did not believe that people could do good deeds for no rewards, although he believed people had it in them to try to be good. I think that this is a harsh view. Hobbes reasoned that human behavior functioned according to laws. He believed in a social compact, where people would voluntarily create the government to rule them.…

    • 1312 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hereditary successors were born just like any other baby in the world. Just because their dad was good king does not mean that they will have the same passion for their people as their dad. That is why the people should elect who they want to represent them. Paine described the government as having the power to protect people against their own evil, life, liberty, and property. He believed that society has the right to govern and protect themselves until too much harm was caused and only then should the government be allowed to intervene.…

    • 1939 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes wanted an absolute monarchy, he believed that people were wicked, selfish, and cruel and that they would act on behalf of their best interests, basically that the humans only think in our self’s, “Every man for every man” Hobbes said. But in the other side we have John Locke that he basically wanted a democracy, he said that since we were born we have certain inalienable rights, that are: life, liberty and the right to own property, he also believed that the people were by nature good and that they could be trusted to govern themselves. Humans constantly need rules, laws and consequences, without them is very easy that people can do what they want. Without the laws the families wouldn’t act like a family there would not be fraternity…

    • 1080 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    So if a monarch, or other authority infringes upon any of these rights they have cast away their own entitlement to said rights. It is in these instances, where a ruling body decides without input from the persons mentioned; that Locke believes war is justified. However, Locke does not believe that war is something that should be practiced often, and he also believes that there are other ways to ensure the rights of each individual. This is the true reasoning behind society and governments, and by extension the definitive guideline to how a ruling body should be formed. Not by chance, power, or subjection but by the people that are to be governed, because these governments’ sole purpose is to protect each citizen’s natural rights.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Hobbes cared about maximizing liberty, defining social justice, and knowing how to divide the limits of the government power. The process of the state of nature is formed by a community and a government. People would view him as a “Psychological egoist” he was over the top with an unrealistic view of human nature. In the laws of nature and the social contract, “Hobbes thinks the state of nature is something we ought to avoid, at any cost except our own self presentation” (Thomas Hobbes). Hobbes believed in a social contract and how it would help the government rule the society.…

    • 1796 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    He (the monarch) does not wrong, because lawful/unlawful and good/evil are at the discretion of the will of the sovereign. Locke disagrees and states that the state exists to solely to protect the natural rights of its people. When a government fails to do so, citizens have the right (and even the duty) to renounce their support and even to rebel. Locke opposes Hobbes’s view that the original state of nature was “nasty, brutish, and short,” and that people, by way of a social contract, yielded their rights as to benefit their own self. Locke counters with this, “And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does…

    • 1322 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Montesquieu And Despotism

    • 756 Words
    • 4 Pages

    His main focus was on the possibility of drastic social change. He argued against Hobbes that state of war among individuals was a social phenomenon rather than an innate quality of human beings. Rousseau believed all problems started with the ownership of property and the claiming of private property is what brought about war, conflict and thus the need for a civil state. “Rousseau’s perception for the rejuvenation of the individual and society was not a return to the original state of nature” (p.17). He believed that the repairing of a society would only be possible if all members of that society shared the construction of laws for their common happiness equally; therefore the sovereign authority would reside in the General Will.…

    • 756 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays