Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are political philosophers with points of views from the extreme right to the extreme left in a nut shell you can say they would agree to disagree. Thomas Hobbes was mostly pessimistic in his views of mankind in general. He believed that humans were evil and selfish and incapable of coexisting with one another without violence and turmoil. In our natural state we are subjected to the physical demands of our bodies. We are not capable of thinking for ourselves or knowing what belongs to us or someone else and therefore, only an absolute ruler can save us from self destruction and sustain peace within society. John Locke on the other hand had a different view of humans. He was more optimistic and looked at the good in people. Locke believed by nature human beings are peaceful, sociable and quite capable of making a distinction between right and wrong. He believed in a system of government put in place to serve the people not one in which the government ruled or controlled the people. The natural state to Hobbes is war while the natural state to Locke is peace. After reading about Hobbes and Locke, I believe a lot of both of their belief but not at the extremes.
Hobbes in overly pessimistic and Locke give us way too much credit. As for Hobbes, I can understand his point of view because he lived during a time of war. His perception of humans was based on that time period and basically and account of what he witnessed. I do believe that laws are created for our protection and we do give up some freedom in return for security hence the Patriot Act but, I believe the laws we have are only and extension of the commandments set forth from God. It’s a little hard for me to argue against Hobbes understanding of people being selfish because we are in some ways or another. If there wasn’t someone or something guiding us how would we know or understand the difference between right and wrong? I think we are capable of thinking for ourselves because at a young age morals and values were instilled in us to make conscientious decisions about what we are doing. I would have to agree with Locke, society should have a contract agree with government like what we have today, if we do not like or agree with our elected officials we vote them out of office.
The Essay on Hobbes Locke Rousseau
... is necessary. The government is run by the people. Locke is opposed to Hobbes? view of royal absolutism. Rousseau, on the other ... it is established. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau each developed differing versions of the social contract, but all agreed that certain freedoms ... causing war. With this view that humans are motivated only by selfish interests, Hobbes argues that people are better off living ...
With a single ruler, he can make decisions that are not in the best interest of the public without any fear of being thrown out of office. The main difference I can see between Hobbes’ and Locke’s view on government is a dictatorship leads to greed within the government and violence by the government and a government working for society opens the doors people to pursue money and wealth or greed and of course there will be violence but not without consequences. In general I think we can and do live in peace together, meaning respecting one another’s properties, despite all the negativity we hear and see. The laws are here to deter those who may fall weak to temptation. If we lived in the type of society that Hobbes saw fitting for humans it wouldn’t be a matter of whether or not we are capable thinking we just simple won’t be allowed to think for ourselves. I like to think Locke was correct in believing we have the right to choose our own path in life in order to live a prosperous life while still having a security blanket.
