Thomas Hobbes and John Locke

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke

The political thinking of Thomas Hobbes was likely influenced by the fact that he lived during one of the most crucial historical periods in England. There was much fighting between the King, who wanted more power, and the parliament, which was looking for a more democratic angle. Because of this, Hobbes found that he did not agree with either of them. He did not believe in the 'divine right of kings' which stated that a king's authority was given him by God and therefore to obey the king was to obey God. He also, however, did not think that the king and parliament should share power. He is, truly, both a radical and a conservative, which made his political life somewhat difficult. He wrote The Leviathan, which was published in 1651 and considered by many to be a political masterpiece. It is still seen to be important today, and even though it was written so long ago there are still those that believe it also has to do with the political theory of the more modern day as well. This is significant for those that study politics today and actually seek to understand much of the reasoning behind it and the theories that encompass it.

Social contract is a theory that indicates that individuals have an agreement between themselves in order to form society. It is assumed that political and moral obligations of various people are based on this theory. Both Hobbes and Locke believed in the social contract theory, but the way that they developed it in their political thought and the way that they utilized the term were not the same. Hobbes believed that men are selfish by nature, but will choose to belong to the social contract rather than return to a state of nature. Locke, however, stated that the state of nature was a pre-political but not pre-moral place where everyone lived their lives as they saw fit, without interference from others. They were not, however, free to do things that harmed others. This harmony was believed to be a social contract between all individuals.