Locke And Hobbes Thinking Men Essay Research

Locke And Hobbes: Thinking Men Essay, Research Paper

Abstract

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes lived during a very turbulent century in Britain. Both men were great thinkers of their time, but held very different opinions on politics and many other facets of life and man. Both of these men were theorists on natural law and social contracts, but this is where the resemblance between the two ends. The time in which these two men lived can account for the pessimistic views of Hobbes on the nature of man and the ideal form of government. Locke, however, held very different views on these subjects, offering fairly more realistic and optimistic words about them. Locke believed that men are born with basic rights, while Hobbes believes that men are born with no rights at all. Locke theorized that, man will exist in peace, and will naturally exist to help himself survive and not get in the way of others in their identical pursuit. Hobbes, on the other hand, believed that men lived basically for self-preservation, and that they exist in a constant state of war. He also thought that the opposing forces of each individual man neutralize each other, and that men need to form a government to be kept in line. On this note, Locke believes that man is naturally social, and that men will form a government whose basic purpose is to serve the rights and common good of the people. Using what is known of each man, it can be said that Hobbes desires an ideally absolute type of government, with all power resting in one single ruler, and that Locke would prefer a government more like that of the United States, that grants the people their freedom and is utilized to serve them. Both Hobbes and Locke have written some major works of literature, and it is only by reading and understanding these that a person can decide which form of government he believes is the right one.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes: Thinking Men.

Many consider John Locke and Thomas Hobbes of Britain two of the greatest political minds. Each man has written classic literature concerning their views on social contracts and natural law. Hobbes, and his pessimistic views of man, always contradicted Locke.s more American standards of thinking. While no one really followed Hobbes. idea of how to run a government, the United States modeled some of its Constitution after many of Locke.s ideas. This is because, in more modern thinking, people can relate to how Locke viewed the basic nature of man over that of Hobbes. Using detailed quotes and examples, the ideas of these two men can easily be broken down and contrasted.

John Locke was a very stern believer in basic human rights. He believed that all men, in a state of nature, are far less evil than Hobbes would like to believe. According to Josh Brown, Locke believed that “In the state of nature, a innate sense of right and wrong governs all of us, which is imbued by God and our capacity to reason” (1996). Men, in nature, all desire the right to live. While trying to observe this right, men also must realize that other men besides themselves are after the same thing, and respect their right to live also. For most of the time, this allows man to live in relative peace and harmony, flourishing in this state of nature. When the nature of two men crosses paths, and conflict occurs, “we quickly discover that our partiality in such conflicts prevents us from objectively executing the laws of nature” (Brown, 1996). This causes men to go to war, since conflicts cannot be solved between two men alone, holding different viewpoints. Also according to Brown, and based on Locke.s beliefs, “We then construct a system which allows for independent, objective and binding adjudication of the law of nature, so that we can attain security and also retain many of our .natural rights. at the same time” (1996). Based on these beliefs, it can be deduced that Locke believed that men, existing in a state of nature, interacted with each other and formed societies. He also believed that men, in a state of nature, will punish people for wrongdoing done against them. This is where his beliefs about the ideal government and how it should be run stem from.

Thomas Hobbes had quite a different viewpoint on the basic nature of man. In his most famous work of literature, called Leviathan (1951), he argued that man is naturally hedonistic. He also argued that “In that often glorified state of nature, life is .solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short., a .war of every man against every man..” (anonymous). Men, according to Hobbes, were essentially born equal. This equality, contrasting to Locke.s views, is caused by man.s power, opposed to the power of every other man. This belief is said to be a beginning notion towards the idea of checks and balances. In this state of nature, “the opposing vices of individuals are said to neutralize one another and produce policies conducive to the common good” (Anger, 1996). It was also argued by Hobbes that a major driving force in each man is the continual fear brought about by the danger of violent death. Hobbes believed that men existed in a constant state of conflict with each other, and that each wrong neutralizes a wrong done by another man. By this, it can also be said that he believed that man exists in a constant state of war, continuously fighting for what he believes to be what is right for him. Hobbes also argued that “as human motives were,