The contrast between these two political philosophers, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes has increasingly been argued as one of the greatest to ever exist in the world. The modern political science has had its basis on these two philosophers. Before analyzing their differences and taking the stand on which philosopher I should agree with, I have to analyze their similarities and the common stands they had about power in the society and take a close look at their idea about the constitution and its role to the society (Rushdoony, 46). Although these two philosophers had a complete different stand in most cases, these very few common basic stands are significantly important to analyze to avoid biasness in their analysis. They believed in the power of constitution and its rule to govern over the people. The constitution is considered to be a gift provided by the citizens to the government and the people hold upon the local authority with the main control coming from the central government. These are the only few views that Hobbes and Locke share in common.
The differences that Locke and Hobbes have have greatly contributed to their familiarity among the people. In basing their differences in order to take my stand on who I do agree with, it is important to mention that these two individuals broke down motivation that rose from human beings and tried to analyzed it in the very basic conditions of their human nature. In this view, the two have a completely different polar stands on the matter. (Rushdoony, 63)
In most of Locke ideas, he bases his concern on human being controlling themselves rather than the outward forces either politically or socially. On the other hand, Hobbes believes in the power of a state rather than an individual’s own judgment (Mitchell, 68). Therefore, I do not agree with Hobbes on all his ideas concerning human nature and his interaction towards the state or the society. In most cases, his ideas are completely inefficient and unpractical to the society. I do agree with the fact that human beings are social animal as argued by Locke. Human beings being a social animal, require each other for a complete happy life. On the other hand, Hobbes explains that society could not exist without the state’s power. This can be considered to be a total assumption on the level of relationship between human beings, society and the state governments.
In addition, I do agree with Locke’s idea about human being state of nature that they do honor their personal obligations and promises. In this view, Locke is very right when he argues that in a sense that each and every individual has a promise to his conscience and hence has to meet them in every way possible (Mitchell, 84). Therefore, I do disagree with Hobbes statement that claims there is no society which is solitary poor and lives in a state of continual fear. In order to meet an individual promise, there must be a state of fear that the promise may fail to be fulfilled.
Moreover, Locke was very right when he described that human beings has the knowledge to differentiate the right and good. He further claimed that human being has the ability to resolve internal conflicts among themselves. This is evidently observed in our day to day life and it can be perfectly argued that Locke was very right. However, I do completely disagree with Hobbes personal idea about this point that the state has the right to own all individuals’ properties and that human beings’ conscience was being controlled by the state government.
In a concluding remark, Locke can be defined as a philosopher who was basing his argument and ideas in a realistic and practical manner. Therefore, in this view, I do agree with almost all his ideas about human nature as most of them can be clearly seen and evaluated in our modern day society. On the other hand, I do disagree with most of Hobbes’s ideas since they cannot be applied practically in the field; they are so theoretical with complex and interlocking ideas that cannot be clearly analyzed. However, they both contributed in our modern day political science. (Tak, 78)
Works Cited
Mitchell, John J. Human Nature: Theories, Conjectures, and Descriptions. Metuchen, N.J: Scarecrow Press, 1972. Print.
Rushdoony, Rousas J. The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy. Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press, 1971. Print.
Tak, Nico W. Hobbes Versus Locke: Redefining the War on Terror. Carlisle Barracks, Pa: U.S. Army War College, 2008. Print.
