Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … Nature by Hobbe and Locke
Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, bases his argument of an all-powerful and unlimited government on a scientifically modeled reasoning. He asserts that it is only a sovereign and an all-powerful government that has the authority to attract full obedience from the subjects thus preventing them from resorting to violent acts of rebellion, chaos, and violence.
Hobbes uses the desire-aversion principle and the man's insatiable desire for power to argue out his concept of the state of nature. He asserts that in the absence of ultimate power, humanity co-exists in a state described as equality. Equality implies that all humankind have expectations that equally match their individualistic fulfilled desires. Further, they bear equality in their desire fight for the unlimited resources as well as kill. Using deductive reasoning, Hobbes then argues out that eventuality of this state of affair is "war of every man against every man." In a state of equality characterized by limited resources, then people are bound to enter into a state of competition for the resources. Since it is impossible to share the resources equally, and the mindset of vulnerability that each individual in this state feels, then people are compelled to the principle of being the first one to strike. This then triggers out a self-defensive mechanism as each person attempts to protect the power they possess. This situation is characterized by constant fears of violence, as the concept self-preservation takes pre-eminence. In such an environment, it is utterly impossible for civilization to develop (Hobbes, 2011).
In such a state where everybody is struggling to safeguard their power, Hobbes argues out that all self-preservation acts would be justifiable. As such, for fear of continued conflicts and...
Unfortunately, this agreement is based more on trust. In this sense, this move still presents problems, as the uncertainty of the actions that others may take cannot be based on trust only (Hobbes, 2011).
Hobbes further asserts that natural man would explore all alternatives to secure peace. Man must therefore enter into a contract of limited rights. Hobbes finds out that the viability of the contract is impossible as long as the state of nature still exists. It is at this point that humankind decides to give up his call for state of nature and transfer the power to a single institution. As such, the central power becomes sovereign and it is representative of all those who signed the contract. Hobbes concludes by saying that it is this sovereign power than ensures peace and civilization (Hobbes, 2011).
John Locke, in Second Treatise of Government, takes a different perspective regarding the state of nature and the idea of unlimited government. Both Locke and Hobbes agree on the fact that, in a state of nature, man would exist in a state of equality and utmost desire for self-preservation. However, unlike Hobbes, Locke discounts the concept that has an absolute right to everything at this state man and would have a constant war just for the sake of preserving his powers. In other words, Locke disagrees with the idea of first strike as an intervention of vulnerability for the sake of preserving ones powers. He further disagrees with the assertion that state of war cannot be avoided in a state of nature (Locke, 2006).
Both Hobbes and Locke concur on the fact that there exist…
References
Locke, J. (2006). Second Treatise of Government. New York, NY: Mobile Reference.
Hobbes, T. (2011). Leviathan. New York, NY: Digireads.com Publishing.
Hobbes vs. Locke Thomas Hobbes and John Locke each provide intriguing opinions concerning the state of nature, but their thinking differs when considering the form of governing that each promotes as being the most effective. The individuals in Locke's example of a government appear to have greater security than those in Hobbes', as the latter considers that there would be nothing wrong with people renouncing some of their rights in order
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke: Perspectives on Governance and Power Though John Locke's theory of natural law and natural rights at first glance seem to oppose the conservative authoritarianism of Thomas Hobbes', both men set out to establish a framework for governance that would protect the rights of individuals. John Locke takes the approach that a democratic nation with a system of checks and balances was an essential ingredient to protecting
The second part of this book introduces the more central aspect of his argument's epistemological motive, with the prescription for proper leadership extending from a view that is ethically, intellectually and socially instructed. We can easily detect here the strands of ideology which would be invested into Hobbes view many centuries hence. This is to say that at the crux of his argument, Plato writes that "until philosophers are kings,
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke each formulated notions regarding human liberty in nearly the same social, political, and provincial circumstances. Although their most famous works were separated approximately forty years from one another, they were both wealthy members of seventeenth century English society during a period of particular social and religious turmoil. Similarly, both Hobbes and Locke sought to use reasoning to determine the most appropriate form of political and
Basically, Hobbes takes a long historical view of human society, and sees the continuation of civil societies -- i.e. those organized under governments -- as the prime necessity for any progress. Left in the state of nature, mankind could not be guaranteed the continued success of any long-term projects, and therefore would not desire to undertake them. Also, without the rule of law, many men would not feel any need
Hobbes believes that the cruel nature of human beings causes the state of nature to be a war of all against all. To do this, we will explain the difference between collective and individual rationality and how it applies to human beings in the Hobbesian state of nature. Also, we will identify the assumptions that cause Hobbes to believe the state of nature is a war of all against