Compare and contrast the ideas about human nature in two theorists Hobbes and Locke - Essay Example

Hobbes did not share the recognized assumption that man was a social animal by his nature claiming that society could not exist without the power of the state and proper government. Instead, he argued that motivation and particularly self-interest was the central factor that affected behaviour of human beings (Leviathan I 13). Although Hobbes developed a sophisticated system of such motives that included courage, honor, pity, compassion, and other, he strongly believed that self-interest played the key role while the other motives should be treated as supplementary or secondary.

Premising from these assumptions, Hobbes developed his famous justification of morality based on self-interested actions (Leviathan I 6). Modern form of this theory, known as 'ethical egoism', postulates that a self-interested action should be regarded as a standard of good (Rachels, 2008). John Locke who had the religious sentiment Hobbes apparently lacked proceeded from the assumption of God's creation of man and, therefore, believed in the natural freedom of human being that included the right to pursue life, health, and property.

Also Locke argued that human beings are social animal by nature and societies emerged as a result of the rational efforts of humans taken to protect themselves from adversities of living in the 'state of nature' (Locke, 1990). In other words, Locke believed that humans their natural state mostly kept their promises and obligations, while Hobbes denied any organization in the 'natural' society of men claiming that fear and self-interest were the primary motivators of human behavior. The dissimilarity of human nature views advocated by the two thinkers can further be illustrated by their treatment of political authority and modern nation-state.

Legitimacy of authority is one of the fundamental questions in political philosophy. There are multiple issues and controversies involved in this major problem including the meaning of political authority, the distinction between political authority and political power, moral and legal aspects of political authority, and many others. Majority of contemporary political theorists consider that the state has authority in the descriptive sense. This means that the state maintains public order via creating rules and issuing commands that subjects generally obey due to the dominant belief that the state has authority to do so (Hart 1961).

Locke and Hobbes explain the origins of such belief in entirely different ways. According to Thomas Hobbes, in prehistoric uncivilized times before any sort of government emerged, there was constant war with "every man, against every man" (Hobbes, 1668, p.12). Consequently, Hobbesian justification of authority logically followed from the total brutality of human beings in their natural state characterized by intolerance: submission to authority was the only way to eliminate the brutality and intolerance of the State of Nature (Hobbes, 1668).

By contrast, John Locke believed that the original state of man was not as hostile as Hobbes thought. In Locke's opinion happiness, reason and tolerance were the core characteristics of the natural man, and all humans, in their original state, were equal and absolutely free to pursue things, considered as indisputable rights, namely "life, health, liberty and possessions"