John Locke was also regarded as one of the most remarkable political thinkers in seventeenth-century Europe. But defiantly, his philosophical arguments differed significantly from Hobbes. Locke perceived mankind as naturally good and kind. He argued that people could cope with and survive well with others, but a government was needed (Christman 2002). The government would merely possess enough power granted by the people. The perception of Locke on the government was founded only on serving the greater good or the public interest. He detested having an unlimited, supreme authoritative government (Christman 2002).
Locke’s considerable importance in political thought is better known. As the first systematic theorist of the philosophy of liberalism, Locke exercised enormous influence in both England and America. In his Two Treatises of Government (1690), Locke set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right—and sometimes the duty—to withdraw their support and even to rebel. Locke opposed Thomas Hobbes’s view that the original state of nature was “nasty, brutish, and short,” and that individuals through a social contract surrendered—for the sake of self-preservation—their rights [...] (Academic American Encyclopaedia 1994, 388).
Locke dealt with the assertion of Hobbes that a state of war was the state of nature, though he did not relate this assertion to Hobbes. He disproved it by citing existing and actual historical cases of individuals in a state of nature. For this intent he considered any individuals who are not under the authority of a common arbitrator to resolve conflicts or disputes, individuals who may justifiably take steps themselves to punish criminals, just as in a state of nature (Academic American Encyclopaedia 1994).
Thomas Hobbes was evidently a monarchist. He ...
Cite this document
(“Compare Hobbes' and Locke's understanding of the state of nature and Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/385717-compare-hobbes-and-lockes-understanding-of-the-state-of-nature-and-of-natural-law-who-is-more-convincing
(Compare Hobbes' and Locke'S Understanding of the State of Nature and Essay)
“Compare Hobbes' and Locke'S Understanding of the State of Nature and Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/385717-compare-hobbes-and-lockes-understanding-of-the-state-of-nature-and-of-natural-law-who-is-more-convincing.
Hobbes has given a very unique face to how society was created and how individual roles changed over the years. According to him, there was a ‘state of nature’ even before the formation of society. It was a state where there were no laws governing the behavior of humans and the activities were so much cruel that even if a person needs to take something from his neighbor, he would just kill him and take it in his possession.
Locke argues that in a state of nature, all individuals have a natural right to whatever it is they obtain, so long as they labour upon it. In a state of nature, all individuals have equal rights against eachother. The following will examine the state of nature in both philosophers, and in turn, it will be argued that Hobbes view of nature leads to a position that defends a strong sovereign or monarchy, by contrast, Locke's more egalitarian view of nature leads to a more democratic society.
In addition, Africa seems to be in a constant state of turmoil going from one bad government to another. Then, there are tensions in Afghanistan and in Asia, with China being more assertive. In the background is the constant threat of terrorism. The adage that ‘everything changes to remain the same’ could certainly be true in the current state of international affair, as the same themes have been present for millennium-power, instability and the ‘appropriate’ action.
They want to understand how people can do away with their State of Nature, so that they can produce productive civil societies. This paper aims to compare Hobbes’ and Locke’s concepts and premises regarding consent, contracts, and states of nature. Hobbes and Locke have similarities in the justification of the formation of consent and contracts, but not in its dissolution, because of their contending views on the State of Nature.
The analysis will be presented in a comparison format which will enhance the differing viewpoints of Hobbes and Locke regarding subject matter. Human Nature: It should be noted that all the social theorists of natural law have come up with the statement that the nature of humans is animal-like.
Despite certain similarities that were largely due to similar historic and intellectual context of the Enlightenment, the philosophers maintained dramatic differences in their views on social structure, political organization and the nature of human being.
Their arguments were influenced by their historical experiences. They were both social contract theorists and natural law theorists but beyond this, their views differed on the state of nature, the social contract, and the system of
In this paper, my goal in this paper is to compare and contrasts their respective depictions about human nature and state of nature and see the philosopher with the strongest depiction and also be able to see if what they both said is
According to Hobbes (1985, p.33), international relations denote a global state of nature. In Leviathan, war is caused by living in the state of nature and that state of war is influenced by competition, difference and glory (Sorell,
5 Pages(1250 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Compare Hobbes' and Locke's understanding of the state of nature and of natural law. Who is more convincing for FREE!