Hobbes vs. Locke

556 Words3 Pages
Hobbes vs. Locke The state of nature, as described by both Hobbes and Locke, is describing the way that we really are. It is basically how we as a society operate, involving government or not. Both philosophers have their own personal touch to this definition. Thomas Hobbes would argue what we are all similar in what drives us. We are all power hungry and action oriented. This drive for power that we have leads to seek it, yet there are limited resources. Because of this, there is a war of “every man against every man”. Because of this, Hobbes believes in Rex Lex, or “the king is law”. The government needs to keep society in order to preserve the peace, and we need a sovereign leader to be all powerful (leviathan). This involves the citizens creating a social contract and giving some rights for the greater good. John Locke, on the other hand, breaks down the state of nature into 4 categories. First, we have freedom. This is God given, and we are “free moral agents”. Second, we are all equal and born with the same basic nature and qualities. There is no “blood” difference and no natural hierarchy, so aristocrats are no better than merchants. Third, we are all independent and self interested with inalienable rights (life, liberty, and property). This leads to a moral law, or a natural law, which includes the duty to maintain the rights of others. According to Locke, we are moral people, so there is no “war against all”. In Locke’s eyes, we should uphold Lex Rex (the law is king). We need the law to uphold order and assure we keep our inalienable rights, and no one should be above said law, not even a king. He believes in the commonwealth, and the people have the obligation to seek it. I personally believe more in John Locke’s philosophy. I think the government should be involved in seeking the commonwealth and the good of the people, but I don’t think we should
Open Document