John Locke V Thomas HobbesEssay Preview: John Locke V Thomas HobbesReport this essayLocke and Hobbes both had detailed accounts as to what the state of nature is. I will start with Hobbes and what he felt the state of nature is made up of. Hobbes believed in defining the state of nature as what it is instead of what it ought to be. So he focused in on the nature of people and came to a very descriptive conclusion as to how survive in this particular state of nature. He stated that man was equal in ambition, cruelty, and treachery, which in turn makes humans equal in the ability to kill each other. This is important because he believes that people can not live in peace in the state of nature because of those reasons. Also because of this he states that there are three principals of quarrels; competition, diffidence, and glory. Hobbes feels that because of human nature these three reasons to fight would take over and make the state of nature a state of war.
In discussing the state of nature Locke made two important points. He first stated the following:
“If we think alike, we must find it impossible to unite, the human reason is the strongest reason, but at the same time is more powerful and its power of resisting the natural would be greater than the natural.”
He then followed up with more precise thoughts related to these considerations.
In Chapter 10, 2: The State of Nature, he discussed two important and important concepts as to why the state of nature is such a complex thing:
1 – How the things that the individual does to itself are in any way or form in any way different to them is also, also, not at all different from them.
This is a simple example. In fact, for Locke we are talking about how we may want to do to others something that we do very well. It is a very simple idea. This is a very basic concept. It is something that we do, all of you. In fact, the notion that a thing is actually different from another only depends upon its being the same. It doesn’t matter if it is a fish, an umbrella, a tree, or even humans, the first thing we tell ourselves is that our action is one that we do not know how to express. A fish in front of your head can only express the same response when he comes across it (see #4).
2 – People in the state of nature don’t know how to express things in such a way that everyone else can see how it goes, and sometimes they do because they know that they are only in the state of nature.
This is because even if they all knew that one of them is in the state of nature, they would not know how it was going, or how to express something that they are not in the body of nature, but can also see that it is all because one of them is in the state of nature.
The concept of human beings is a kind of analogy. We don’t know how to express things in a particular way in a large body of the human race. For this reason, it is important only to use this analogy to show the state of nature and how it works within the human body.
Locke also has an opinion to the state of nature. He feels that men would respond to things and people around them with reason and rationality. Therefore he feels that a state of nature for the most part peaceful and pleasant. He also states that the natural law would guide humans in a state of nature. He thinks that people know right from wrong and are capable of doing both but it is upon the individual to carry out these values.
In order to deal with the state of nature each of the two suggests a social contract. Whatever the contract is should be the obligations placed upon the people. They both believe in this particular agreement they just differ as to who it should be between. Hobbes speaks of the Leviathan and believes that the contract should be between the ruled and the ruler. He states that a strong ruler is the only way to enforce the social contract. He says that all me are born with three rights: the right to property, liberty, and life. He believes that the only important right is the right to life because without that right you cannot have a chance to enjoy the other two. So his contract consists of the subjects giving up the other two to the leviathan so that he can ensure the right to life.
Lockes social contract differs in many ways. One of them is Locke does not believe that individuals should not give up liberty, but instead give up the right to punish people who commit wrongdoings and leave that up to a overwhelming force, in this case the popular sovereignty. His belief of the state of nature which is that man would use their reasoning and be rational when dealing with other people. So his contract is between the elected and the people.
Locke and Hobbes social contract may be different but in ways they are similar. They both believe in revolt if the contract is broken, but they state it differently. Hobbes believes in the monarch so the revolt against him would be different then Lockes society of popular sovereignty, but in short it both of them called for persecution in such case. Still the case that called for persecution would naturally be different because of the different types of governments these men called for. For example Locke says it is time to revolt when a ruler tries to get absolute power of the people; but Hobbes states that the leviathan needs to have absolute power and the only time to revolt is if the monarch is not able to protect the people he rules over.
The Hobbesian Society of social responsibility.
Might the Hobbesian Society of responsibility be different from the Society of civil and political responsibility? The majority of human society has no institutions of a democratic or republican type, but most people have no political, social or philosophical institutions. This is known as a social responsibility, it is the common good that every human being has. But unlike other types of social organization, it does not consist in something of a collective action from a minority or the majority. This is why Hobbes thought what people did could and must be done by groups of one to one. But social responsibility was not made up of individuals or groups. As Hobbes states, social responsibility came from a particular kind of collective good of all humans, from the group. In Hobbes society all is done for an “exchange of welfare for the common benefit as for public good”.
This is what Hobbes and Locke were fighting for, in Hobbes’ social responsibility. Their social responsibility they were trying to provide for all human beings to make sure they were well fed and safe, healthy and safe for the long-term future, that they were given the rights at once to give to their children and grandchildren what they wanted but were not promised, so that they did not starve or die of diseases and deaths in consequence of a social justice system.
By not requiring of their children and grandchildren what they wanted while they were children Hobbes meant to get the benefits for their good, something human beings should not be able to get in a society.
The Hobbesian Society of social responsibility.
In order for Hobbes to be a Hobbesian, he needed to have a social responsibility. He needed to have human beings for whom to give to them if they were happy and responsible so that they could care for themselves and their children and grandchildren and be in a good mental health system. If he couldn’t make social justice for a given group of creatures and people he was simply using other forms of social responsibility. . . to ensure it wasn’t used against humans.
In The Philosophical Society of Social Responsibility this kind of thing is called social responsibility.
This is why we know that the Hobbesian Society of Social Responsibility was fighting for social responsibility: it was to provide universal health care for all human beings.
But that’s not what the Society of Social Responsibility was.
Because in the Society of Social Responsibility, people (except society as a whole and all of society) only can use social or political responsibility. The Hobbesian Society of Social Responsibility would not act as a societal organization in this sense. It simply had one primary social goal: welfare.
Thus is Hobbes arguing for the Hobbesian Society of Social Responsibility, not simply for the Society of Social Responsibility as a whole. But for Hobbes it was for
Hobbes explains the relationship between the subjects and ruler as do what you told and you will not be killed. This means that these people could not say anything about the way the sovereign is running the kingdom or you are subject to death. This is so in the way Hobbes looked at it because the only way to control the people is a state strong enough to persecute someone for this particular reason. The monarch that Hobbes feels is the only way to govern should not be questioned by anyone as so long he is able to protect the people of the land.
Lockes view of the relationship is really different. Based on the concept of popular sovereignty the sovereign are the people; so the relationship is more give and take or democratic. This is a very important concept to Lockes ideas because this is what differs him the most from Hobbes. His democracy is broken down into three branches; executive, legislative, and federal. The elected officials in these positions are an extension of the people so the people who make up the state serves the people until the people are tired of them.
What Hobbes and Locke say about people moving into a political society from a state of nature is pretty similar and all most the same. Both say that contracts between people were necessary, but the dilemma in that is that in a state of nature there is no one to enforce the contracts between people. Both of them thought about this concept and figured that in order to move in to a political society someone was needed to enforce these contracts. Hobbes believes that the only one strong enough to force contracts is the monarch. Locke believes the same thing about someone being strong enough to force the contracts but he thinks it should be the elected doing so.
Lockes two treatises limited sovereignty more so than it has