Hobbes versus Locke: State of Nature
Mar 22 '03
The Bottom Line A short compare and contrast for my political philosophy class. Compared John Locke and Thomas Hobbes
Throughout history, philosophers have come up with a number of theories, and ways of dealing with the issues of their time. For Socrates, it was the Sophists corrupting logic. For Thomas Hobbes, it was wondering how a society would function without rules. As for John Locke, he felt the government should be working for the interest of the citizens. In this paper, I will focus on the differences between Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, on the state of nature.
Hobbes most famous saying about the state of nature was, “Life is brutish, short and harsh, in the state of nature.” In other words, Hobbes felt that people would simply be acting on their own self-interest, and would go to any extreme to meet that end. We are always in competition for resources, whether they be food, shelter, money and so on in a state of nature. The best way of protecting citizens would be to have a government that is powerful, intimidating, much like a whale, hence the name Leviathan, according to Hobbes.
The view Locke held is somewhat different. He views that people are generally peaceful, and that they would not bother other people. Locke believed that in a state of nature, we should have a contractual relationship between the ordinary citizens and the elected government officials. For example, President Bush is to uphold the constitution of the United States. Let’s suppose that one day, Bush unconstitutionally declares that everyone who follows the Muslim faith is evil, and should therefore be arrested and executed. Locke would state that the people should overthrow, punish, and replace Bush with someone who will not violate our contract, that being our constitution.
Another area of contrast in regards to life in the state of nature, is about how we should act. According to Hobbes, life is not immoral, but amoral in a state of nature. So, killing someone, in a state of nature, would be exactly the same as letting someone live. The reason is because anything goes, when there is no government to tell people how to conduct themselves. Locke, on the other hand, would not hold such a view. Just like the leader of a country, the citizens have limits as to what they may or may not do, in Locke’s view. For example, people have the right, in a state of nature, to follow any religion they wanted, or say whatever they felt like, as long as they were not hurting others to express their beliefs.
Regardless of the differences between Locke and Hobbes, their works have been considered influential in shaping people and government in regards to how a society should be. One believed the state of nature was to compete and fight for resources, while another trusted that people were naturally inclined to go about their own way of life.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
matthewn
|
|
Location: For me to know and you to find out!
Reviews written: 266
Trusted by: 49 members
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.