Hobbes and Locke on Human Freedom and Natural Law
This paper examines the philosophical similarities and differences between Thomas Hobbes and John Locke on the nature of human freedom and liberty. Both thinkers emerged from seventeenth-century English society and shared an empiricist foundation — the belief that all knowledge derives from sensory experience. However, their conclusions diverge sharply. Locke grounds human freedom in natural equality before God and a Law of Nature that obligates individuals to respect one another's rights, while Hobbes defines liberty as the absence of external impediments and roots his Law of Nature entirely in self-interest. The paper traces how these differing premises lead each philosopher to a distinct vision of legitimate government and the social contract.
- Introduction: Two Philosophers, One Era: Context and scope of Hobbes–Locke comparison
- Empiricism as a Shared Foundation: Both thinkers root knowledge in sensory experience
- Locke's Natural State: Equality, Freedom, and the Will of God: Locke's God-given natural equality and perfect freedom
- Hobbes's Natural Condition: Science, Desire, and Self-Interest: Hobbes's scientific, materialist view of natural freedom
- Defining Liberty: Positive vs. Negative Conceptions: Hobbes's negative vs. Locke's positive definitions of liberty
- Natural Law and the Social Contract: How each thinker justifies government and sovereign authority
- Conclusion: Lasting Legacies: Enduring influence of Hobbes and Locke on political thought
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper establishes a clear comparative framework early, identifying a shared empiricist premise before methodically tracing divergences, which gives the argument logical momentum.
- Direct quotations from primary sources (Hobbes's Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise) are used to anchor each claim, preventing the analysis from becoming purely abstract.
- The contrast between Hobbes's negative definition of liberty and Locke's positive definition is articulated precisely, demonstrating an ability to handle subtle philosophical distinctions.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies the comparative analytical essay form: it opens by establishing common ground, then systematically maps points of divergence across multiple dimensions — epistemology, theology, definitions of freedom, natural law, and political theory. This layered structure ensures that the comparison illuminates both thinkers rather than reducing one to a foil for the other.
Structure breakdown
The essay moves from shared foundations (empiricism) to divergent premises (God vs. science), then to competing definitions of liberty, before arriving at the political consequences of each view (Hobbes's powerful sovereign vs. Locke's consent-based government). The conclusion briefly assesses each thinker's lasting intellectual legacy. This funnel structure — broad agreement narrowing to sharp contrast — is well-suited to a comparative philosophy essay at the undergraduate level.
Introduction: Two Philosophers, One Era
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 by approximately forty years, both were 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 social organization. It might be anticipated, therefore, that their fundamental conceptions of freedom would share many similarities. However — aside from their initial premises — Hobbes and Locke vary widely in both their approaches to the topic of freedom and the consequences they believe their lines of reasoning hold for society.
Locke has come to be regarded as one of the founders of modern political philosophy in the West, and rightly so. Hobbes, on the other hand, has continued to be celebrated for his philosophical construction of metaphysical materialism. Their ideas concerning freedom reflect these two drastically different perspectives and are, in fact, products of them.
Empiricism as a Shared Foundation
The central premise that links Locke and Hobbes on the topic of liberty is that both believe all human knowledge comes into existence through the senses. To them, the human mind is analogous to a blank sheet of paper, waiting for our interpretations of sound, light, texture, and taste to write the story of what we perceive to be real. This position automatically denies that humans are born with any knowledge or drives toward complex action before receiving external stimulus.
Hobbes believes that "from sense experience we derive historical knowledge and prudence, and from reason we derive scientific and philosophical knowledge and reason" (McGreal 1992, p. 187). Hobbes thus holds that the information we receive from our senses can be used to draw rational conclusions through deductive thought. Locke likewise holds that "human knowledge is derived either from sense experience or from introspection" (McGreal 1992, p. 223). The minor difference is that introspection is not necessarily based upon deductive reasoning, yet still relies upon external information; knowledge may be inferred rather than deduced. Although both philosophers virtually agree on where knowledge originates, they use this shared idea to arrive at utterly divergent conclusions regarding the nature of man.
Bibliography
Cahn, Steven M. (1999). Classics of Western Philosophy: Fifth Edition. Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Collinson, Diane. (1987). Fifty Major Philosophers. Routledge Publishing, New York, New York.
Cottingham, John. (1996). Western Philosophy: An Anthology. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
McGreal, Ian P. (1992). Great Thinkers of the Western World. HarperCollins Publishers, New York, New York.
Strathern, Paul. (1999). Locke in 90 Minutes. Ivan R. Dee, Chicago, Illinois.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.