Are Hobbes Locke Inherently Good Or Evil

Locke’s natural rights were critical for the formation of United States government as we know it today, especially through the writing of his Second Treatise on Government. This second treatise is what is most often quoted about Locke. This is his writing that contains an unrestricted defense of liberty and his concept of natural rights, life, health, liberty, and possessions. (Locke) He believed that governments should only be formed to protect those rights.

Instead he believed in a constitutional government, which is when the ruler or king has to follow rules to. He believed that people was born with freedom, so instead of having an absolute ruler he made sure the governments power came from the consent of the people. Locke had a deep influence on modern political thinking, so he made the government change the way they ran their organization and it ended working out in the

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were early English philosophers who each had very different views on the roles of the government and the people being governed. Their interpretations of human nature each had a lasting and vast impact on modern political science. Locke believed that men had the right to revolt against oppressive government. “‘Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”

Hobbes and locke were two philosophers who two different ideas on the world and human behavior as a whole. Hobbes mainly believed that without any form of government people will always be trying to fight for power. On the other hand, Locke believed everyone is born peaceful but can be corrupted by society. Hobbes and Locke both had very different views on different human nature, the purpose of government, and both had a big influence on many different countries.

Nonetheless, if the government fails to protect our property or rights, we can rebel against him and remove him from his place. Locke’s law creates a government, that can run the society peacefully, and the law of the society is based on practical reasons. Locke thinks the majority rules is the best system of government. Locke has a positive view of ‘human nature’. He thinks men are good, and they are born with natural rights.

Locke believed that the basic human right is property which went against Hobbe's belief. His two treatises completely changed how Enlightenment thinkers saw everything. One of many important quotes from the second treatise of government that had a major influence on others

Locke’s ideas from the Two Treatises of Government and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, were based upon the natural rights where power comes from the people. Both of his pieces contributed to revolutions, most importantly the American Revolution as power from monarchies was removed and democracies were created. Allowed for limited government power and all obligations were to the citizens. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding basis was on how the knowledge existence of God, certain moral truths, and laws of logic or mathematics pertained to the natural rights of

Locke's most important and influential political writings are contained in his Two Treatises on Government. The first treatise is concerned almost exclusively with refuting the argument that political authority was derived from religious authority. The second treatise contains Locke’s own constructive view of the aims and justification for civil government. According to Locke, the State of Nature, the natural condition of mankind, is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others. This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in one’s interest.

Philosophers have shaped the way in which we look at how societies function to better understand the universe. Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes are considered to be two of the most influential philosophers in history that have guided the way of thinking about human nature. Machiavelli is most famous for “The prince,” which praised and hoped to persuade rulers to enforce a republican government. Hobbes is best known for his work “leviathan,” which outlines the needs for a sovereign to rule and a social contract to be made. Both philosophers are realists and both identify the need for a ruler.

In the Two Treatises of Government (1689), he defended the claim that men are naturally free and equal against claims that God had made all people naturally subject to a monarch. With both biblical and philosophical justifications, Locke argued in defense of constitutionalism. He believed God gave Adam natural rights like; life, liberty, and property in the book of Genesis and Adam passed it on to the rest of

John Locke believed in a democracy and expressed that humans have the ability to govern themselves. However, Hobbes believed that humans are selfish and need a single leader(king) that should govern all affairs. Post French Revolution people lived under Hobbes theory, but wanted to become a democracy.

Hobbes argued that once an individual is a part of an absolute monarchy, they no longer have the rights to branch away from the government. He created the idea that people who are a part of this absolutist society cannot fight against the authority because it provides protection for the people. Locke had another viewpoint which regarded the protection of the people, but he saw it in a civil society. Locke explained that the social contract was the result of men who had the equal rights as a natural concept of life. He preached that all men have rights and freedom to express their opinions and protection of their property.

When comparing the two different accounts of English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke we must take into consideration a number of things such as the age in which they lived and the time in which they produced their philosophical writings. We will however find out that these two philosophers actually have a couple of things in which agree on even though most of their opinions clash. On one side we have Thomas Hobbes who lived in the time of the English Civil War (1642-1651) who provides a negative framework for his philosophical opinions in his masterpiece Leviathan and who advocates for philosophical absolutism . On the other side we have John Locke, living during the glorious revolution (1688-1689) he presents a positive attitude in his book The Second Treatise of Government and advocates for philosophical and biblical constitutionalism. It is important that we know that the state of nature describes a pre- political society prior to the social contract.

This state of nature was the conditions in which we lived before there were any political governments to rule over us and it described what societies would be like if we had no government at all. In this essay I will compare the opinions given by each philosopher regarding their understanding of the state and the law. I will also discuss how their theories have influenced our understanding of the law today. Thomas Hobbes – Regarding the State and Law Firstly I would like to begin my discussion with Thomas Hobbes.

Thomas Hobbes proposed that the ideal government should be an absolute monarchy as a direct result of experiencing the English Civil War, in which there was internal conflict between the parliamentarians and the royalists. Hobbes made this claim under the assumption that an absolute monarchy would produce consistent policies, reduce conflicts and lower the risk of civil wars due to the singular nature of this ruling system. On another hand, John Locke counters this proposal with the view that absolute monarchies are not legitimate as they are inconsistent with the state of nature. These two diametrically opposed views stem from Hobbes’ and Locke’s different understandings of human nature, namely with regard to power relationships, punishment, and equality in the state of nature. Hobbes’ belief that human beings are selfish and appetitive is antithetical with Locke’s contention that human beings are intrinsically moral even in the state of nature, which results in Locke’s strong disagreement with Hobbes’ proposed absolute monarchy.