Difference between Locke and Hobbes Philosophy
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were known as the natural law and social contract theorists. However, The two differ greatly in terms of their position and the consequences of different laws. Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher. He became famous when he published his book Leviathan, the founder of political philosophy in the West. All of this allowed Hobbes to gain multiple identities. He was the main spokesman for the dictatorship. Not only that, he contributed a lot to various disciplines including ethics, geometry, gas physics, theology, and even political science. Difference between Locke and Hobbes Philosophy
John Locke Difference between Locke and Hobbes Philosophy
John Locke is considered the father of liberalism. He was one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers and a great philosopher and therapist. He is one of the first British experimental experts. He even contributed heavily to the American Declaration of Independence, which focused on classical republicanism and liberal theory. John Locke studied at a prestigious institution in London called the Westminster School. After completing his education, he was accepted into Christ Church, Oxford. However, he was not satisfied with the undergraduate curriculum at the time. He was more interested in Rene Descartes’ work than in the university curriculum. He also studied medicine and received a Bachelor of Medicine from Oxford.
Thomas Hobbes’s upbringing was different. He studied at Westport Church when he was four years old. From there he was entered Amesbury School and had the opportunity to enter a private school maintained by Robert Latimer. His academic qualifications were impressive, which is why he approached Magdalen Hall, closely connected to Hertford College, Oxford. Hobbes was not very interested in school learning so he decided to have his own curriculum. It wasn’t until 1608 that he managed to get his bachelor’s degree.
Both individuals have different positions on issues. Take, for example, the question of human nature. According to Locke, man is by nature a social animal. However, Hobbes thinks otherwise. He does not consider man as a social animal, he states that society would not even exist if man did not have certain needs.
Regarding the question of the natural state, Locke believes that in the natural state men are generally true to their word and even do their duties. Despite the insecurities, they are more pleasant and calm. As for Hobbes, he made his position clear on the state of nature in a short statement. He said that there is no society that does not have continuous fear of the danger of violent death. He argues that without a state with a government, man’s life would be poor, brutal, short and unpleasant.
The social contract is different between the two. Locke believes that by respecting the right to life, one obtains the right to justice and the impartial protection of property. Any violation of the social contract would provoke a state of war between compatriots. Hobbes, on the other hand, man submits his freedom in exchange for security and that it obeys the social contract to be safe.
Differences between the philosophy of Locke and Hobbes
- Lock believes that man is a social animal by nature, while Hobbes claims that man is not naturally social, but submits to the state in exchange for protection.
- Lock believes that man in a natural state is obedient and true to his word, while Hobbes thinks that without someone to govern him, man is brutal and his life would be in danger.
- In the social contract, Lock believes that man has an impartial right to life and protection, while Hobbes believes that as long as man obeys the covenant he will be safe.