-
Essay / Compare and contrast Hobbes and John Locke - 1432
The social contract theory was a political foundation that emphasized different forms of government. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke mention the formation of governments, the main key to forming a successful government is through consent, such as voting, joining an army or being ruled by a sovereign. The contrasting ideologies of the two theorists differ in human nature: Hobbes believed that man is not a social animal while John Locke opposed this idea and asserted that by nature man was a social animal. The distinction that characterizes both the role of government in a man's life and the perspective on the state of nature was argued in the following texts, Leviathan and Second Treatise of Government. Society Consents to Government Hobbes and Locke argued that people primarily form a state for different reasons depending on their ideology. Hobbes mentioned that humans only formed a state for their own self-interest, to protect themselves from the wrath of others. In contrast, Locke had a more positive perspective that individuals believed it was moral to form a state to protect their natural rights and would not be deprived of their rights. In Leviathan, Hobbes states: “Confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, who can subdue all their wills, by the plurality of votes” (Locke, 95). The comparison between Hobbes' statement and Locke's is: “He is not and cannot be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people” (Locke, 70). Both theories of sovereign power relate to human nature. For example, Hobbes believes that humans need strong authority to protect citizens from each other and from outside forces, which is why the sovereign has absolute power. Criticizing Locke's view, he mentions that people in the state of nature live in peace and tranquility among themselves. others set moral limits without having a (central) sovereign. This is how a Commonwealth is established with the consent of the people, and by having consent it becomes legitimate. Once born into a Commonwealth an individual cannot form a new one, you are bound by an alliance The ideology Hobbes gets regarding the Commonwealth is correct, the sovereign should have unlimited power to rule indefinitely, possessing unlimited rights , which would make him above the law. Locke is unable to understand the absolute control of the sovereign. It states that a Commonwealth is established when property exists, meaning it is determined when the sovereign creates civil laws to distribute all property. He also explains that once the state of nature is established then the possessions of individuals belong to them if labor is added to them, he gives the example of the acorn which when you mix with it then it takes to be equal by adding to it of work. , if work is not added to it then it is not yours. Contrary to Hobbes' ideology, it is foolish to enter a Commonwealth with property, you must enter without giving up any rights or anything that concerns you, the sovereign is the one who will define the rights, while Locke think that by entering a Commonwealth enters with goods.