Hobbes Vs. Locke

Compare and contrast between Hobbes and Locke on their views of the natural conditions of man. What are the most important distinctions between these two philosophers on their views of the rights of the sovereign? What was the novelty of Hobbes and Locke’s theory with respect to the sources of the legitimacy of political power (Sovereign) and political institution (the state)?
It is often said that our thoughts mirror the environment to which we are exposed to. With Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, one could certainly argue this point. Both were exposed to a tumultuous time in England history and lived through a civil war. Experiencing this prompted both philosophers to write on the origin of man, how he exists in the state of nature, and how the transition from this state of nature to a civilized society in which the people set up a government occurs. It is evident from both texts that their views were most likely influenced by the war. It is also apparent that Hobbes saw the war in a more negative light, which served to see the nature of man in a negative light. Locke is the more optimistic of the two and credits the nature of man as being peaceful. Nonetheless, this evolution of man from natural rule to governmental rule g

It is obvious that Locke built upon Hobbes’ theories because the formation of a state would not be needed if every man lived in peace in the state of nature. He did not see man as having a natural desire for competition but saw that greed and inequality can fuel undesirable outcomes, but is necessary for an idealistic society. Locke sees that man always wants to gain wealth and property and this is accomplished through labor. Therefore, it is unequal effort in labor that gives way to unequal amounts of wealth. It follows that it is the job of the sovereign to protect each person’s property and limit disputes over estates. Locke differs in his organization of the sovereign, however, and strongly disagreed with the incorporation of an absolute monarchy. Locke was very concerned with personal liberties and saw a monarchy as an obstacle to the goals of the civil society and incapable of looking after the intentions of its members. Moreover, Locke thought that leaving power up to one single authority could prove deleterious to the society on the whole. Believing this, he proposed that the government should consist of different branches, giving each only the amount of power that was required to do its job. This separation of powers eventually gave rise to the system of checks and balances that is evident in America today.

It is easy to see that philosophy is a growing creature that builds on the blocks that were laid previously. Hobbes’ argument assumes that man will likely give up the state of nature to be ruled by a sovereign that has unrestricted authority. They may have to endure bad laws and tyrannical rule simply to not live in a state of war. Since man is essentially evil in the state of nature and competition is prevalent since day one, would it even be possible to find a ruler that would not be preoccupied with always getting more? Because questions such as this can never be completely answered, it is never possible to discredit any philosopher’s work. While Hobbes may not be entirely right, his work still gave way to Locke and other philosophers such as Rousseau. It is from this natural evolution of political science and philosophy that the world has progressed to the state it is in now. We owe much thanks to the work of all philosophers because as we have seen, what was written in the 17th century still has major implications on our lives today, most notably the documents that govern our own country.

Because Locke had a very different concept of the qualities of the state of nature, it should follow that he has a different idea of the sovereignty of the society. Man is living in peace in nature so there must be a different reason that he will voluntarily enter into a state. Locke believes that the re