Hobbes vs. Locke Thomas Hobbes and John

Hobbes vs. Locke

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke each provide intriguing opinions concerning the state of nature, but their thinking differs when considering the form of governing that each promotes as being the most effective. The individuals in Locke's example of a government appear to have greater security than those in Hobbes', as the latter considers that there would be nothing wrong with people renouncing some of their rights in order to be provided with protection from the government. Locke emphasized that rights such as life, liberty, and the right to own property are inalienable and that it would be wrong for an institution, regardless of its intentions, to deny people of them.

From Hobbes' perspective, people cannot possibly be trusted as long as they attempt to govern themselves and it is thus essential for a form of monarchy to control them and to provide a safe environment. In contrast, Locke believed that all that people needed in order to govern themselves were instructions with regard to concepts like rationality and morality, as by becoming proficient in such domains they would experience little to no problems in constructing a safe society. From Locke's point-of-view, in order for people to be able to understand his thinking, they would have to think about how "all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it" (Locke).

Locke's "Second Treatise on Civil Government" makes it possible for readers to understand the philosopher's thinking from the very first lines. Locke insists that the majority needs to be the governing factor in a social order, as when an individual wants to become a part of a civil society, he or she virtually expresses interest in wanting to act in accordance with a series of legislations and decisions that the majority expresses.

Locke focuses on providing apparently solid arguments regarding how it is actually wrong to promote a social system involving the majority governing. One of the most interesting arguments relates to how history shows little to no precedents involving a community that was successfully ruled by the majority. Throughout history some of the most successful societies have involved absolute monarchs who were primarily interested in the well-being of the community rather than in the individual well-being of its members. Hobbes contributes to this idea by claiming that "monarchy is the only natural, i.e. original form of authority, the only form which corresponds to nature's original order, whereas aristocracy and democracy are artificially produced by men, merely 'cemented by human wit'" (Strauss 60).

While Hobbes and Locke both emphasize the need for a government in order to have a healthy society, the latter wants the majority to be a part of the respective government. Such a strategy would guarantee that power stays in the hands of the masses and that abuse does not take place. "Hobbes thinks that the purpose of reason is to 'acquire the knowledge of consequences' whereas Locke thinks that it 'teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, Death, liberty, or possessions'" (Sofroniou 68).

Locke considered that kings are likely to fail during their ruling and that it would thus be wrong for a community to accept being ruled by a monarch. The philosopher believed that moral limitations needed to be imposed on a government in order for its people to be able to have access to inalienable rights. Hobbes' thinking contrasts Locke's, taking into account that the former believes that moral limitations should have nothing to do with a government's powers. Hobbes focused on promoting law as a rational concept while Locke concentrated on demonstrating that it was actually a moral idea.

The law of nature, from Locke's point-of-view, needed to guide governments so as for people to be safe. He considered that a state of perfect freedom could be achieved only if governments acknowledged the fact that people played an important role in making decisions and that it was only by consulting with the masses that they could implement particular social strategies.

I consider that Locke's theory is more important because the moral attitudes that it requires. Locke attempted to provide society with the opportunity to understand that it is in its best interest to concentrate on trying to promote the idea of equality. By providing anecdotal evidence trying to support ideologies such as monarchy Locke actually attempts to harshly criticize them. The English philosopher was obviously concerned about opening people's eyes concerning the critical condition they were in as a result of being ruled by a monarch.

From my perspective, Hobbes theory is (in spite of its practicality) dangerous for humanity in general. It does not support progress and it is almost similar to thinking expressed during the American slavery period. People cannot function properly when they are pressed and a society that lives in fear is a sick society. Locke observed this and got actively involved in trying to change people's minds, even with the fact that he lived during a period when it was impossible to do so. Locke was an idealist that put across thinking that was ahead of his time and this generated little to no effects on a society that already had trouble trying to restructure its monarchic principles.