Locke vs. Hobbes

706 Words3 Pages
Locke vs. Hobbes During the Enlightenment, there were several philosophers that have influenced the world in many ways; including the two opposing philosophers, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Although they believed that government was an necessity, Locke and Hobbes had different views on the social contract, which describes the relationship between the government and the people. Out of the two competing theories regarding the social contract that emerged during the Enlightenment, I believe that John Locke’s ideas would create a political system that would provide the population with the most ideal balance between security and liberty. In the book, The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes explained his views of the social contract. First of all, he claimed that human beings in their state of nature are always in a “war [because] [everybody] is against [each] [other]. And therefore, if [anyone] desires the same thing which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies.” Hobbes implied that people only care for their own conservation and sometimes their only endeavor is to destroy or subdue one another. He then stated that the only way to govern is to “confer all their power and strength upon one man, or assembly of men,” denoting that the only way to govern or rule is by dictatorship. Someone who may agree with him would be a king or queen that rules many colonies or countries in the world. In another book, The Two Treatises of Government, John Locke explains his views of the social contract as well. Locke claimed that human beings in the state of nature are born with “perfect freedom to do as they wish and dispose of themselves and their possessions as they think fit, within the bounds of nature. [Humans] need not to ask permission or the consent of any other man.” Which is implied that he believed that every human being is free to do what they wish because
Open Document