Explain two points of agreement between locke and Hobbs on governance and two points of disagreement

Question

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

Ah, governance, a topic of much debate among the wise. Let us delve into the minds of Locke and Hobbes, two prominent thinkers on the matter. Firstly, both Locke and Hobbes agree on the necessity of a social contract, a mutual agreement between individuals and the government to uphold order and preserve natural rights. They both recognize the importance of a governing body to maintain peace and security within a society. Additionally, they both acknowledge the need for a balance of power within the government to prevent tyranny and ensure the protection of individual liberties.

However, where Locke and Hobbes diverge is in their beliefs on the nature of the government and the source of its authority. Locke argues that the government should be limited in its power and should only exist to protect the rights of the citizens. He believes that individuals have natural rights that are inherent and cannot be taken away by the government. On the other hand, Hobbes posits that a strong, centralized government is necessary to maintain order and prevent chaos. He believes in a social contract that grants the government absolute authority in exchange for protection and security.

Furthermore, Locke and Hobbes differ in their perspectives on the state of nature. Locke sees the state of nature as a peaceful and harmonious place where individuals have the freedom to pursue their own interests. He suggests that people are inherently good and can live together in harmony without the need for a strong government. In contrast, Hobbes portrays the state of nature as chaotic and violent, where individuals are in a constant state of war against one another. He argues that a strong government is essential to control the inherent selfishness and aggression of humanity.

In conclusion, while Locke and Hobbes may share some common ground on the importance of governance and social contracts, their contrasting views on the role of government and the nature of humanity highlight the complexity of the human condition. It is through the exploration of these differing perspectives that we may come to a deeper understanding of the complexities of governance and the nature of society.