Hobbes Vs Locke

Words: 1170
Pages: 5

Kimberley Hornaday
1980130
PHIL 330
February 25th, 2016

The condition of man in the state of nature will consistently ever remain an enigma to modern day scholars, for no matter the level of intellect or education, it is a circumstance that cannot be known first hand. Because we as a society strive for an acquired intellect and education, we are thus separated from the state of nature. Any and all analysis of man in the state of nature, therefore, is done hypothetically and from opinion-based observation. Locke and Hobbes share the similarities of approaching this question as theorists of social contract and natural law. They both conclude the state of nature to be defined as a lack of civil government; an environment in which humanity
…show more content…
In the natural state, it is rational for man to seek peace and order, but while Locke entrusts man with an inherent knowledge of right and wrong, and the capability to maintain peace and order amongst themselves, Hobbes sees man as inherently evil and corrupt. Viewing man as naturally irrational and incapable of maintaining peace, Hobbes sees the obvious requirement for an absolute sovereign to guide and govern the collected. Without one, society could not exist in peace; this is where Locke disagrees. While he admits evidence of irrationality among men, Locke thinks man is inherently rational and strong in independence. Being capable of knowing what is lawful and unlawful successfully, man is able to resolve conflicts and maintain peace without a governing sovereign. Locke therefore views it as irrational to transfer any power or authority to a sovereign, but it is more effectively argued that Locke’s theory is unsuccessful. My first paragraphs will provide explanation of Locke’s view of man in the state of nature, along with an explanation of the social contract, followed by indication of problems with his thesis. I will then introduce Hobbes’ opposition, and argue for its success. With reference to Locke’s conflict with Hobbes’ argument, I will conclude with Hobbes’ …show more content…
Locke admits a government as a useful method to avoid loss of these natural rights, but still emphasizes the irrationality behind admitting all authority to the governing sovereign. His government is necessarily more liberal than a dictatorship. The commonwealth must actively choose to sign a social contract that gives the sovereign a job to protect primal rights, and they are motivated to do so in order to obtain security and peace. By virtue of a system of democratic law and public say, the sovereign need only to act in accordance with the public’s needs. If the government fails to do so, the common man has the right to leave the commonwealth or to rebel. Locke’s commonwealth government operates under a system of social contract, where people have inherently inalienable rights – liberty, life, and the right to private property – that they may choose to transfer under the protection of a selected sovereign power. However, this transfer could never rationally be whole. For an individual to completely surrender his authority and power to the sovereign would be to create an absolute authoritative sovereign. If this were the case, it is no longer required of the sovereign to act in accordance with the needs of the commonwealth for, by logic, he has no dependence on them. An absolute monarch would thus have the authority to against the public needs, if he so