vs.

John Locke's Theory vs. Thomas Hobbes' Theory

What's the Difference?

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were both influential political philosophers who lived during the 17th century and had differing views on the nature of government and the social contract. Locke believed in the concept of natural rights and argued that individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property. He believed that government exists to protect these rights and that individuals have the right to rebel against a government that fails to do so. In contrast, Hobbes believed in a more authoritarian form of government, arguing that individuals are inherently selfish and need a strong central authority to maintain order and prevent chaos. He believed that individuals should surrender their rights to a sovereign ruler in exchange for protection and security. Overall, Locke's theory emphasizes individual rights and freedoms, while Hobbes' theory prioritizes the need for a strong and centralized government.

Comparison

AttributeJohn Locke's TheoryThomas Hobbes' Theory
View on human natureHumans are inherently good and rationalHumans are inherently selfish and brutish
Role of governmentGovernment exists to protect natural rightsGovernment exists to maintain order and prevent chaos
Right to revolutionPeople have the right to revolt against unjust governmentPeople do not have the right to revolt against government
Social contractPeople enter into a social contract to protect their rightsPeople enter into a social contract to maintain order

Further Detail

Background

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were both influential philosophers who lived during the 17th century. They both contributed significantly to the field of political philosophy, particularly in the areas of social contract theory and the nature of government. While they shared some similarities in their beliefs, there were also key differences in their theories.

State of Nature

One of the fundamental differences between Locke and Hobbes lies in their views on the state of nature. Hobbes believed that in a state of nature, humans were inherently selfish and competitive, leading to a constant state of war. He argued that in order to escape this chaos, individuals needed to surrender their rights to a sovereign ruler who would maintain order. In contrast, Locke believed that in a state of nature, humans were rational and capable of living peacefully together. He argued that individuals had natural rights to life, liberty, and property, and that government existed to protect these rights.

Social Contract

Both Locke and Hobbes believed in the concept of a social contract, but they had different views on its nature. Hobbes believed that the social contract was a binding agreement between individuals and the sovereign ruler, in which individuals surrendered their rights in exchange for protection and security. He argued that the ruler's authority was absolute and that individuals had no right to rebel against it. On the other hand, Locke believed that the social contract was a mutual agreement between individuals and the government, in which individuals retained certain rights and could rebel against the government if it failed to protect those rights.

Role of Government

Another key difference between Locke and Hobbes was their views on the role of government. Hobbes believed that government should have absolute power in order to maintain order and prevent chaos. He argued that individuals needed to surrender their rights to the government in order to ensure their own safety and security. In contrast, Locke believed that government should be limited in its powers and exist to protect the natural rights of individuals. He argued that individuals had the right to rebel against a government that violated their rights.

Property Rights

Locke and Hobbes also had differing views on property rights. Hobbes believed that property rights were created by the sovereign ruler and that individuals had no inherent right to property. He argued that individuals needed to surrender their property to the government in order to ensure social order. On the other hand, Locke believed that individuals had a natural right to property, which was derived from their labor. He argued that individuals had the right to acquire and possess property as long as they did not harm others in the process.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both made significant contributions to political philosophy, their theories differed in key areas. Hobbes believed that humans were inherently selfish and competitive, leading to a state of war in the absence of government. He argued for a strong, absolute government to maintain order and prevent chaos. On the other hand, Locke believed that humans were rational and capable of living peacefully together in a state of nature. He argued for a limited government that existed to protect the natural rights of individuals. These differences in their theories continue to shape political debates and discussions to this day.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.