While Hobbes and Locke each noted equality among men, their discussion of equality differs greatly. In fact, to Hobbes, it is the only reasonable option. Locke believed in the contractual relationships of the people and government.
In the event peace and safety are threatened by transgression of another, it is a Law of Nature for man to hold the offender responsible. Governing by consent in an institution wherein the community is the supreme power is a government I believe most citizens would desire as opposed to the disturbing Commonwealth created by Hobbes.
John Locke was much more passive and positive in outlook. However, both Hobbes and Locke assert it violates a fundamental law of nature to take your own life. The only difference between these two institutions is that under the first, it arises out of fear of the sovereign and in the second, it arises out of fear of one another.
In order to meet our needs we must interact with nature to get the results we want. Truth exists independent of time and space. He is a collective conscience, of sorts, manifested in the form of a man.
However, he then deviates indicating that it is only necessary that a majority of the community consent to sovereignty, signifying that if one chooses not to consent, he will fall back into the State of Nature and be subjected to death by any man.
Unlike Hobbes, he did not see a state of nature as evil but did agree that people are formed by their educations. The result of this compact is a government created by those who are governed, or, a commonwealth.
In asserting peace, man must ascertain that the other man is in agreement. Government according to Hobbes was there to protect the citizens from themselves through force and intimidation. They are also prohibited from transferring their power.
Myths are not true but they are helpful in a society to keep order. On the issue of equality Locke provides the more convincing argument by providing a political theory that ensures equality. Leviathan does not set out the need for equality of man in a political sense.
Locke can rightfully be considered once of the founding fathers in the philosophy of liberalism and had a gigantic influence over both Great Britain and America. Thus in political philosophy, Hobbes favors strong, absolute monarchs and mechanisms of state control, acting as a bulwark against our tendency to regress to barbarism.
The primary difference in the role of the proposed Commonwealths is the application of consent. Locke, on the other hand, said the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. Under Hobbes theory, an artificial man called the Commonwealth is formed which can do no injustice or injury, as it is the judge of all, the sole legislator, interpreter of all laws and appointer of all offices.
Where the law is silent, the citizen is free to do whatever it is he chooses to do. I am unsure of whether the fear of death or of protection of property provide the most sound reasoning as both views are plausible.
On human nature, Hobbes cites that he three primary reasons men clash is competition for personal gain, mistrust due to concerns of safety and glory due to concern of reputation.
Its basic principle is the equal right of all to hold office and determine public policy. To Hobbes, they would have been synonymous. Hobbes was a materialist, whose account of the world was based on material causes rather than ideas and a nominalist with respect to language.
What is the source of authority. If while living in the State of Nature someone attempts to take your freedom, assert power over another man or assert force or even the design of force, a State of War is created. Hobbes will always be associated with the idea of the state of nature. It is only natural that things are that way.
Man has the power to kill a murderer who has killed unjustly. In politics, he saw civilization as based on a social contract, in which the ruled and the rulers make agreements based on mutual advantage and legitimacy is conferred on rulers by the consent of those they rule.
Hobbes believed life was amoral rather than immoral in a state of nature. Hobbes accounts for no such freedoms and to him, being that the monarch is the embodiment of the people, those people have no right or ability to depose him.
We will write a custom essay sample on Political Theory: Comparing Locke, • For Hobbes and Locke: liberty is the sphere of human conduct that is unregulated by the law.
Where the law is silent, the citizen is free to do whatever it is he chooses to do.
• For Rousseau, law is the very beginning of our freedom, but we are free to the. Get an answer for 'Compare and contrast the philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.' and find homework help for other Political Science, Philosophy, Hobbes, Thomas, Locke, John questions at.
Hobbes and Locke John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were famous political Theorists among other things in their time. Hobbes who was born 40 years before Locke had a very different perspective to Locke and both will be examined more through this essay.
Comparing Hobbes and Locke Essay. Social contract theorists Thomas Hobbes and John Locke agree that legitimate government comes only from the mutual consent of those governed - Comparing Hobbes and Locke Essay introduction. Although both were empiricists, the ways by which they came to their conclusions differed wildly, and perhaps as a result.
Hobbes is largely known for his writing of the “Leviathan”, and Locke for authoring "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." Included in their essays, both men discuss the purpose and structure of government, natural law, and the characteristics of man in and out of the state of nature.
Free Essay: Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing.Essay comparing hobbes locke