In 2017, three and a half centuries after the publication of Leviathan, Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, prominent philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke held a holographic philosophical debate during the Global Government Convention. The debate focused on the conflicting views of both philosophers in the areas of State of Nature, Human Nature, and Social Construct. Thomas Hobbes, also regarded as a founder of modern political philosophy, published Leviathan in 1651. John Locke, often referred to as an Empiricist and the Father of Liberalism, published Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration in 1689. The historical context of both publications severely influenced the philosophers’
…show more content…
it is to instill law and order. In the real world, which you seem absolutely oblivious to, there is no sense of morality. People live in fear, especially fear of death that is fueled by inescapable violence. This is where the government comes in as an outlet for people to relinquish their violent ways, thus having the welfare of all individuals as the main goal.
Locke: I let you speak without interrupting you, please reciprocate that same level of respect. As you previously stated, mankind fails to cooperate with one another, in this case, how will all individuals within a community subjugate to a rule of government that forces them to give up violence, what you say is their security?
Hobbes: Of course there will be outliers within a community that would rather not renounce their violent lifestyles and this is all the reason why a Leviathan government is crucial. The government may use necessary means to force these outliers to give up violence.
Locke: Force? And what are the consequences of this government becoming too forceful or even abusive?
Hobbes: Nothing at all because being forceful is imperative to establishing law and order.
Locke: That is impractical in the most severe way possible. A government should be in the form of democracy, not an absolute monarchy. People should be able to revolt in the event of an abusive …show more content…
In conclusion, it is crystal clear that Thomas Hobbes has won this debate. He had John Locke choking amidst his rebuttal which led to him having no option but to end the debate and neglect answering the overbearing question raised by Hobbes.
The nature of man is evil, self-centered, and insatiable, if it was not there would be no need for government. In the perfect freedom, peace, equality, and preservation of life that Locke speaks of, men are said to treat one another as they would treat themselves because they are Godlike. If this was truly an adequate representation of human nature and state of nature, mankind would know how to mitigate issues on an individual position without the interference of a government. Some may object by saying that there are anomalies in every community that deviate from the consensus. However, human nature implies that said characteristics are universal in all humans, there are no exceptions. If the basis of Locke’s interpretations were as plausible as Hobbes, every exception would be a result of human nature, not vice versa. Thus, a government is compulsory because the state of nature is a state of war of every man against every man, human nature is egotistical and power-driven, and the government should be in the form of an absolute monarchy because it instills strict and effective law and
it is to instill law and order. In the real world, which you seem absolutely oblivious to, there is no sense of morality. People live in fear, especially fear of death that is fueled by inescapable violence. This is where the government comes in as an outlet for people to relinquish their violent ways, thus having the welfare of all individuals as the main goal.
Locke: I let you speak without interrupting you, please reciprocate that same level of respect. As you previously stated, mankind fails to cooperate with one another, in this case, how will all individuals within a community subjugate to a rule of government that forces them to give up violence, what you say is their security?
Hobbes: Of course there will be outliers within a community that would rather not renounce their violent lifestyles and this is all the reason why a Leviathan government is crucial. The government may use necessary means to force these outliers to give up violence.
Locke: Force? And what are the consequences of this government becoming too forceful or even abusive?
Hobbes: Nothing at all because being forceful is imperative to establishing law and order.
Locke: That is impractical in the most severe way possible. A government should be in the form of democracy, not an absolute monarchy. People should be able to revolt in the event of an abusive …show more content…
In conclusion, it is crystal clear that Thomas Hobbes has won this debate. He had John Locke choking amidst his rebuttal which led to him having no option but to end the debate and neglect answering the overbearing question raised by Hobbes.
The nature of man is evil, self-centered, and insatiable, if it was not there would be no need for government. In the perfect freedom, peace, equality, and preservation of life that Locke speaks of, men are said to treat one another as they would treat themselves because they are Godlike. If this was truly an adequate representation of human nature and state of nature, mankind would know how to mitigate issues on an individual position without the interference of a government. Some may object by saying that there are anomalies in every community that deviate from the consensus. However, human nature implies that said characteristics are universal in all humans, there are no exceptions. If the basis of Locke’s interpretations were as plausible as Hobbes, every exception would be a result of human nature, not vice versa. Thus, a government is compulsory because the state of nature is a state of war of every man against every man, human nature is egotistical and power-driven, and the government should be in the form of an absolute monarchy because it instills strict and effective law and