One reason for these different conclusions lies in their opposing understanding of human nature, with, in the most crude sense, Hobbes seeing man as a creature of desire and Locke as one of reason. A second explanation for their conclusions is their understanding of the nature of rights. Locke saw certain rights as independent of government or the state, whereas Hobbes, in a sense, saw them as coming from the state. This position of Hobbes is arrived at in a systematic way that perhaps makes him the father of political science.
Hobbes’ State of Nature
Comparing Locke And Rousseau's State Of Nature Essay - Words
Please join StudyMode to read the full document. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, more Locke than Hobbes however, have been enormous influential political philosophers for the modern political thought and development of England and the Americas. The similarities are shown extensively, but there are many differing views of opinion as well. While they both discuss how the state of nature is dangerous, Hobbes is more pessimistic, where Locke , on the other hand, discusses the potential benefits. Furthermore, Hobbes speaks about the state of nature as a hypothetical and Locke demonstrates shows us examples of where it truly exists. Rousseau states that Hobbes and Locke mischaracterize the state of nature , since man is not motivated by greed, envy or material things in a true state of nature. From Rousseau point of view man would be motivated by love to the self and self preservation.
John Locke And The State Of Nature Essay
Both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were great political theorists of the seventeenth century. Both having many different ideas as well as many similar ideas about government. Their ideas differed, especially when it came to the state of nature as well as their governmental views.
In the Second Treatise especially, it is generally recognized, Locke argues the case for individual natural rights, limited government depending on the consent of the governed, separation of powers within government, and most radically, the right of people within a society to depose rulers who fail to uphold their end of the social contract. While the history of the writing of the Treatises shows that it was first conceived and executed as a revolutionary tract, its importance has far exceeded the specific revolutionary machinations which occasioned it. Although the nature of its influence on subsequent ideas is debated among scholars, few question its powerful influence on French, American, and, to a lesser extent, Spanish revolutionaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As a work in political philosophy, its theoretical influence is no less acknowledged.