Compare And Contrast Thomas Hobbes And John Locke

The Bill of Rights is a formal statement of the fundamental rights of the people of the United States, incorporated in the Constitution as Amendments 1-10, and in all state constitutions. [Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.]. The Bill of Rights had an idea that an individual natural rights should be protected from the government.

Anarchists fundamentally object to the notion of a social contract and promote the freedom of the individual. Hobbes’ social contract theory provides a compelling answer to the anarchist’s challenge through his explanation of the state of nature and his solution being an absolute sovereign; furthermore, this argument is supported with historical examples. Hobbes’ interpretation of the state of nature forms a clear dystopian image of pre-society. He argues that in the state of nature all men are equal in the sense that each can pose a real threat to each other.

In this document we will explore the fundamental differences between the governmental reasonings of a mister Thomas Hobbes and a mister John Locke. The two lived very different lives and they also had quite the different opinion of the morality of the human race as a whole. Their lives reflected the reasoning of the two’s opinions and why they chose what type of governmental rulings they had chosen. However, the American peoples, or the former colonists, had went with the reasoning of a mister John Locke. Thomas Hobbes saw the problem with most harsh forms of government due to him living through a period of political disintegration.

Summary Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theory of social contract, which states that we need moral, legal rules because we want to escape the state of nature which is solitary, poor, brutal, nasty, and short. In this state, a man can kill others, and there are limited resources. This can soon lead to a state of war in which we are constantly disposed to harm others to achieve our goals. So, in this state of war if a person was to possess a beautiful house or property, and had all the comforts, luxuries, and amenities to lead a wonderful life; others could come and harm him and deprive him of his fruit of labor, life, and liberty. Therefore, the state of nature is that of fear, violence, and distrust.

And somewhere in the realm of 400 years ago, two prominent opposing “parties” were Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Hobbes’ ideas were more strict, as he was less of a ‘for-the-people’ kind of guy, while Locke believed in many natural rights for man; and in the end, the colonists being affected by these two men’s political battles, went for the man who seemed like someone who actually wanted people to like him - John Locke. Thomas Hobbes has been called many things, from a lunatic to a genius, but despite what some people might say, the man had his political thoughts in order. As the founding father of political philosophies, his number one concern in his work was how human beings could live simultaneously together peacefully, all the while avoiding the

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes, two titans of the Enlightenment, work within similar intellectual frameworks in their seminal writings. Hobbes, in Leviathan, postulates a “state of nature” before society developed, using it as a tool to analyze the emergence of governing institutions. Rousseau borrows this conceit in Discourse on Inequality, tracing the development of man from a primitive state to modern society. Hobbes contends that man is equal in conflict during the state of nature and then remains equal under government due to the ruler’s monopoly on authority. Rousseau, meanwhile, believes that man is equal in harmony in the state of nature and then unequal in developed society.

Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher in the 17th century that is best known for his book Leviathan and his political views. Hobbes’ father was disgraced and forced to leave their town, because of this, Thomas’s uncle is most responsible for his upbringing and his education. At the early age of 14, Hobbes was already studying at oxford. Soon after, he became a tutor for a very affluent family, the Cavendish’s. Hobbes often traveled with the family and learned about many cultures across Europe.

If Hobbes and Locke would see both of their perspectives on governing in the 21st century wouldn't they both see that both of their perspective make sense. According to the way their psychologically viewing government at the era. Since Thomas Hobbs wrote the Leviathan on the background of the English Civil war. Of course anyone would view this and say the country is under cause and we need someone like Oliver Cromwell who came in and became powerful enough to say no one will have the audacity to challenge. Since Hobbs believed that without the absence of an invincible absolute ruler,we would kill each other.

Thomas Hobbes and Jacques Rousseau on the state of nature The world is always filled with rigid dichotomies: good and evil, left and right, McDonald’s and Burger King -- just to mention some of them. The political theory in the 17th century seemed to have experienced a similar trend. The nature of government, more specifically the state of men, were often questioned, like the debate between Democrats and Republicans today. In 17th century Europe, the two major viewpoints on the issue were best exemplified by the writings of Thomas Hobbes, and Jacques Rousseau.

Hobbes lived through the English Civil War where religion and its influence on authority, produced conflict. To understand why the war occurred, Hobbes began to observe humans in what he called their “State of Nature”. Hobbes concluded that nature without society resulted in war. Without the state, humans proved to be naturally selfish, competitive, greedy, and brutish with impulsive tendencies. To intervene war and human impulsiveness, a state was required to regulate society and sustain social order.

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.

The works of the philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Jean- Jacques Rousseau have continued to rival each even though they were never alive during the same period of time. Thomas Hobbes and Jean- Jacques Rousseau both have conflicting views on “Human Nature”. Rousseau being the younger of the two analyzed Hobbes’ work and seemed to deduce the almost opposite of what Hobbes had believed himself. There have been many debates and arguments throughout time that has given valid arguments for both sides to be correct and even points from both that form an appealing ideal to some. Regardless of the opposition of beliefs, the two have a place etched in history as two of the most influential writers and thinkers ever.

In their individual bodies of work, Hobbes and Locke both advocate for their own solutions to escaping the state of nature. Through the use of a collective social contract amongst the population, citizens now find themselves in a society governed by some common arbitrator and leadership. However, the two philosophers approach the concepts of the state of nature and social contract from opposing viewpoints - a contrast which is reflected throughout the majority of their philosophies. The foundational difference throughout their pieces rests on how they view human nature and the innate will of people - be it corrupt and self-servicing or free and capable of reason. This divergence in thought is representative in the way they define key principles, argue for certain stances,

For the most part, philosophies of social contracts are developed from a heuristic perspective of human conditions known as the natural state or conditions that are lack social order. From this perspective, philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes attempt to explain the nature of humans and the rationality that was involved in giving up some of their freedom to create social structures. These theories, nonetheless differ widely on the basis of the author account and the natural state. This paper seeks to bring to light such differences.

For purposes of this paper, Thomas Hobbes’s theory will be the one mainly contrasted. Thomas Hobbes was an English political theorist who put forward theories on state sovereignty, individual rights and human nature in his work Leviathan (1651). Throughout his work (Leviathan), Hobbes poses that before political society men lived under a state of nature. Under this state of nature, humans lived under a perpetual fear, progress was overall inexistent and death would be a common phenomenon; basically, every man had the right to survive by any means necessary, including murder. Because of this perpetual state of fear, humans would resort to giving all their inherent rights to a supreme being in exchange for protection.