Hobbes vs. Locke
What's the Difference?
Hobbes and Locke were both influential political philosophers who lived during the 17th century, but they had very different views on the nature of government and the social contract. Hobbes believed that humans were inherently selfish and violent, and therefore needed a strong, centralized government to maintain order and prevent chaos. In contrast, Locke argued that humans were inherently rational and moral, and that government should exist to protect individual rights and promote the common good. While both philosophers believed in the importance of government, their differing views on human nature and the role of government led to significant differences in their political theories.
Comparison
| Attribute | Hobbes | Locke |
|---|---|---|
| View on human nature | Humans are inherently selfish and driven by self-preservation | Humans are rational and have natural rights |
| Role of government | Strong central authority needed to maintain order | Government should protect natural rights and be limited by consent of the governed |
| Social contract | Individuals give up some freedoms for security and order | Government exists to protect natural rights and can be overthrown if it fails to do so |
| State of nature | State of war where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" | State of nature is peaceful and individuals have natural rights |
Further Detail
Introduction
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two prominent philosophers who lived during the 17th century and made significant contributions to political theory. While both Hobbes and Locke discussed the nature of government and the social contract, they had differing views on the role of government, the state of nature, and the rights of individuals. In this article, we will compare and contrast the attributes of Hobbes and Locke to gain a better understanding of their respective philosophies.
State of Nature
One of the key differences between Hobbes and Locke lies in their conception of the state of nature. Hobbes believed that the state of nature was a state of war and chaos, where individuals were in constant competition for resources and power. In contrast, Locke viewed the state of nature as a state of peace and cooperation, where individuals had natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Hobbes argued that in the state of nature, life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," while Locke believed that individuals had the right to defend themselves and their property.
Social Contract
Both Hobbes and Locke discussed the concept of the social contract, but they had different views on its nature and purpose. Hobbes believed that individuals entered into a social contract to escape the state of nature and create a sovereign authority to maintain order and security. According to Hobbes, individuals surrendered their rights to the sovereign in exchange for protection and security. On the other hand, Locke argued that the social contract was a voluntary agreement between individuals to form a government that would protect their natural rights. Locke believed that individuals retained certain rights, such as the right to property, even after entering into the social contract.
Role of Government
Another key difference between Hobbes and Locke was their views on the role of government. Hobbes believed in a strong, centralized government with absolute power to maintain order and prevent chaos. According to Hobbes, the sovereign had the authority to make and enforce laws, and individuals had a duty to obey the sovereign in order to avoid the state of nature. In contrast, Locke advocated for a limited government with checks and balances to protect individual rights and prevent tyranny. Locke believed that the government's role was to protect the natural rights of individuals, such as life, liberty, and property, and that individuals had the right to rebel against a government that violated these rights.
Rights of Individuals
Both Hobbes and Locke discussed the rights of individuals, but they had different views on the source and nature of these rights. Hobbes believed that individuals had no natural rights in the state of nature and that rights were created by the social contract. According to Hobbes, individuals surrendered their rights to the sovereign in exchange for protection and security. In contrast, Locke argued that individuals had natural rights to life, liberty, and property that were inherent and inalienable. Locke believed that these rights were given to individuals by their creator and could not be taken away by any government or authority.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two influential philosophers who had differing views on the state of nature, the social contract, the role of government, and the rights of individuals. While Hobbes believed in a strong, centralized government to maintain order and prevent chaos, Locke advocated for a limited government to protect individual rights and prevent tyranny. Despite their differences, both philosophers made significant contributions to political theory and continue to influence debates on government and society to this day.
Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.