John Locke Vs Hobbes

Both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were political philosophers and pioneers in the belief that humans in a state of normalcy under no government belonged under the category “State of Nature”. Also both were both social contract theorists in the sense that in the need of a government their needs to be some sort of contract/understanding between the people and the structured power. At first agreeing on this premise, they would come to differ in the end both having radically difference of opinions. Hobbes on one hand believed there needed to be a strong monarchy (a somewhat form of absolutism) ruling over the people to avoid chaos and unrest; whereas Locke believed in a “limited monarchy” (the basis for Parliament) where the people had more of a say and the government did not intervene. …show more content…
Hobbes means that in a state of nature envy and desire constitute humans to live for self-preservation fearing for their lives living in a state of constant warfare. He goes on to say, "no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."(Leviathan). Hobbes has a very pessimistic view on life itself saying people who aren’t living under some sort of structuralized power don’t have knowledge to know right from wrong or good from evil and have nothing to look forward too, and for this seek peace to end their fears of a morbid