Example research essay topic: John Locke Vs Thomas Hobbes - 1,214 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Their theories are both psychologically insightful, but in nature, they are drastically different. Although they lived in the same timeframe, their ideas were derived from different events happening during this time. Hobbes drew his ideas on man from observation, during a time of civil strife in Europe during the 1640 's and 1650 's. Locke drew his ideas from a time where Hobbes did not have the chance to observe the, glorious revolution. In uncivilized times, in times before government, Hobbes asserted the existence of continual war with 'every man, against every man. ' On this point, Locke and Hobbes were not in agreement.

Locke, consistent with his philosophy, viewed man as naturally moral. Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil.

This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature. Even though they both believed that men naturally have to some extent equality and freedom, what makes their concepts differ is the presence or absence of the natural law. In Hobbes' theory, men at their natural state are at constant war, the war of all against all.

Another Hobbes' belief is that most people are selfish and tend to do everything for their own reason. To Hobbes humans are driven to maximize personal gains so in a world where there are no rules humans are in constant fear of each other as they each try to get as much as they can, enough is never enough. Men act in basically the same ways to get what we desire and if two men desire the same things then they inevitably become enemies, no compromises, simply enemies. Hobbes relies on the premise that humans are primarily motivated to do anything that improves their personal situation. This convention holds in our society and is revealed through in everyday items such as keys. We lock our cars and houses so that others are physically prevented from having access to what is ours, an observation Hobbes himself makes.

Control, security and limitation are encountered in each person's daily life. Behind this control is politics. In our society, authority decides what is right and wrong, good and evil; essentially what we are protected against and what we are not. John Locke kept more optimistic beliefs. In the state of nature men mostly kept their promises and honored their obligations, and believed man is reasonable rather than selfish as according to Hobbes. Locke maintained that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance.

He further maintained that all human beings, in their natural state, were equal and free to pursue life, health, liberty, and possessions; and that these were inalienable rights. He stated that men in its nature are independent and equal and the reason for why person will join the society is the willingness to avoid the conflicts and war that will provide the security for this person. Humans know what is right and wrong, and are capable of knowing what is lawful and unlawful well enough to resolve conflicts. In particular, and most importantly, they are capable of telling the difference between what is theirs and what belongs to someone else.

Locke believed people enter into society in order to preserve their property. Society cannot function properly if everyone does not act in a reasonable way and consider the other man. Locke's theories now become heavily influenced by the idea of government. He believed that ideally government is put in place to make sure the reasonable are rewarded. Knowing what people do and don't have the right to relates to how the government should rule their subjects.

The ruler must protect the people's natural rights and the people must give up their power to rule each other. The government's job is to keep the people happy by not overstepping their boundary. Thus Locke's position is that the role of government is to protect the rights, freedom and the security of the people, but the government should not have total power over people. Contrary to John Locke position, Thomas Hobbes thought that people should be ruled by one person and people should give up their freedom toward that person.

One ruler would help prevent chaos and wars. Hobbes shows that humans are naturally evil and that lays down the groundwork for his form of government. Hobbes believed that without the ruler with the power, society would fall into the state of nature in which life will be cruel, unbearable, and with the constant conflicts among the man. Hobbes sees the government or ruler as a powerful sovereign.

He named it 'Leviathan, ' which is the name of a giant sea serpent from the Bible. Hobbes and Locke both agree on the fact that there is a point in time that it is not only the right but also the responsibility of the people to overthrow the government. The government must be stable in order to follow through on their side of the contract or they are bringing a revolt upon themselves... Hobbes says that the Leviathan must be taken out of power when he fails to fulfill his side of the contract. Under Locke's rules, the government must be overthrown when any of the people's God-given rights are taken away or lost. One criticism of Locke's theories is that he was evasive when it came to monetary exchange and its effects.

Money tends to make the reasonable, unreasonable at times. We see evidence of this everyday as people are corrupted by money. After viewing why a government should or would be overthrown we can look at Hobbes and Locke's theory's overall. Hobbes' theory is a pessimistic look at human being and the way they act around each other but Locke's theory suggests that people are more easy-going and peaceful towards each other.

Hobbes point of view on human nature and how a government should be run is a more realistic way of looking at things than John Locke's theory though. Both Hobbes and Locke see human nature differently, Hobbes sees people as being run by selfishness whereas Locke says that people are naturally kind. As we see in the news daily, people are often cruel and inhumane, and we also see kinder people in everyday life. We see people who give up their own personal pleasure so they can serve others. But these people are far and few between, it becomes quickly obvious that humans are drawn towards self-happiness. Bibliography: 1.

Leviathan. Thomas Hobbes, edited by C. B. Macpherson.

Penguin Classics (1968)

Research essay sample on John Locke Vs Thomas Hobbes